simplebooklet thumbnail

of 0
The Science of
Reality TV and Reality: What Are People Really Like?
re you suspicious that reality TV is pretty, well, un realistic? Consider shows like The Bachelor , The Bachelorette , and
Keeping Up with the Kardashians. Viewers are treated to romances and (sometimes) lavish weddings. Those marriages,
however, last months at best. In 2011, for example, over 4 million people tuned in to Kim Kardashian’s wedding
(Ng,2011), a union that lasted all of 72 days. In fact, the average couple is engaged for 17 months before tying the
knot (Fairchild Bridal Group, 2005), and the average marriage lasts 7 years (OECD Family Database, 2010).
On shows like Real Housewives , interpersonal confl ict is standard fare. One study found that on The Apprentice , acts of
interpersonal aggression (insults, arguments, an occasional punch) occurred nearly 85 times per hour (Coyne, Robinson,
& Nelson, 2010). That study also determined that just over half of all aggressive encounters on reality TV programs were
engineered by the producers. So, what’s the truth? According to research that tracks confl ict among friends using daily
diary reports, friends generally report less than one confl ict interaction per week (Burk & others, 2009).
Reality TV viewing might be a guilty pleasure or voyeurism (Baruh, 2010), and many of us hesitate to admit that
we watch (Nabi & others, 2006). But a lot of us are tuning in, eager for a taste of others’ “real behavior.” We get an
opportunity to compare their lives to our own, to learn about how people interact, and to see what they do in
unlikely situations. To borrow Bravo ’s catchphrase, we “watch what happens” out of an undeniable curiosity: the need
to know what other people are like.
We have many other ways to feed this curiosity. Twitter claims more than 175 million users. Tracking someone
else’s life, even in 140-character bites, is just plain interesting to many of us. Through Facebook , blogs, and YouTube
clips, we get a chance to see and try to understand what is arguably the most fascinating aspect of our lives: our
interactions with others. Understanding people is also a key goal of the science of psychology.
Psychologists are scientists who are interested in “watching what happens,” but in very different ways from what
we see on reality TV. Psychologists bring a disciplined curiosity to explaining human behavior, relying on the methods
of science. Like a fan following a celebrity’s Twitter feed, psychologists are passionate about what they study—and
what they study is people of all kinds. There is not a single thing about people that is not fascinating to some
psychologist somewhere.
kin35341_ch01_001-041.indd Page 1 8/19/12 2:23 PM user-f502kin35341_ch01_001-041.indd Page 1 8/19/12 2:23 PM user-f502 /207/MH01822/kin35341_disk1of1/0078035341/kin35341_pagefiles/207/MH01822/kin35341_disk1of1/0078035341/kin35341_pagefiles
2 // CHAPTER 1 // The Science of Psychology
This chapter begins by defi ning psychology and reviewing the history of the fi eld. Next
we survey seven broad approaches that characterize psychological science today. Then, in
sequence, we examine the elements of the scientifi c method, review the different kinds
of research psychologists do, and consider the importance of conducting psychological
research according to ethical guidelines. We conclude with a look at applications of
psychology to daily life—a central focus of this book.
Formally de ned, psychology is the scienti c study of behavior and mental processes.
Let’s consider the three key terms in this de nition: science, behavior , and mental
pro c esses .
As a science , psychology uses systematic methods to observe human
behavior and draw conclusions. The goals of psychological science are to
describe, predict, and explain behavior. In addition, psychologists are often
interested in controlling or changing behavior, and they use scienti c methods
to examine interventions that might help, for example, reduce violence or promote
Researchers might be interested in knowing whether individuals will help a stranger
who has fallen down. The researchers could devise a study in which they observe people
walking past a person who needs help. Through many observations, the researchers could
come to d e scribe helping behavior by counting how many times it occurs in particular
circumstances. They might also try to predict who will help, and when, by examining
characteristics of the individuals studied. Are happy people more likely to help? Are women
or men more likely to help? After the psychologists have analyzed their data, they also will
want to explain why helping behavior occurred when it did. Finally, they might be inter-
ested in changing helping behavior, such as by devising strategies to increase helping.
Behavior is everything we do that can be directly observed—two people kissing, a
baby crying, a college student riding a motorcycle to campus. Mental processes are the
thoughts, feelings, and motives that each of us experiences privately but that cannot be
observed directly. Although we cannot directly see thoughts and feelings, they are none-
theless real. They include thinking about kissing someone, a baby’s feelings when its
mother leaves the room, and a student’s memory of a motorcycle trip.
The scientifi c
study of behavior
and mental
The use of
systematic meth-
ods to observe
the natural world,
including human
behavior, and to
draw conclusions.
Everything we do that can
be directly observed.
mental processes
The thoughts,
feelings, and mo-
tives that people
experience pri-
vately but that
cannot be ob-
served directly.
Defi ning Psychology and
Exploring Its Roots
What is your definition
of psychology? When you think of
the word
first comes to mind?
Behavior includes the
observable act of two
people kissing; mental
processes include their
unobservable thoughts
about kissing.
kin35341_ch01_001-041.indd Page 2 8/1/12 4:53 PM user-f502kin35341_ch01_001-041.indd Page 2 8/1/12 4:53 PM user-f502 /207/MH01822/kin35341_disk1of1/0078035341/kin35341_pagefiles/207/MH01822/kin35341_disk1of1/0078035341/kin35341_pagefiles
Defining Psychology and Exploring Its Roots // 3
The Psychological Frame of Mind
What makes for a good job, a good marriage, or a good life? Psychologists approach these
big life questions as scientists. Psychology is a rigorous discipline that tests assumptions,
bringing scienti c data to bear on the questions of central interest to human beings
(Gravetter & Forzano, 2012; Stanovich, 2010). Psychologists conduct research and rely on
that research to provide evidence for their conclusions. They examine the available evidence
about some aspect of mind and behavior, evaluate how strongly the data (information)
support their hunches, analyze discon rming evidence, and carefully consider whether they
have explored all possible factors and explanations (Leary, 2012). At the core of this sci-
enti c approach are four attitudes : critical thinking, curiosity, skepticism, and objectiv i ty.
Like all scientists, psychologists are critical thinkers. Critical thinking is the process of
thinking deeply and actively, asking questions, and evaluating the evidence (Bonney &
Sternberg, 2011). Critical thinkers question and test what some people say are facts. They
examine research to see how soundly it supports an idea (Jackson, 2012). Critical thinking
reduces the likelihood that conclusions will be based on unreliable personal beliefs, opinions,
and emotions. Critical thinking also comes into play when scientists consider the conclusions
they draw from research. As critical thinkers who are open to new information, scientists
must tolerate uncertainty, knowing that even long-held views are subject to revision.
Critical thinking is very important as you are reading this book. Some of what you
read might  t with your existing beliefs, and some might challenge you to reconsider
your assumptions. Actively engaging in critical thinking is vital to making the most of
psychology. As you study the  eld, think about how what you are learning relates to
your life experiences and your assumptions about people.
Scientists are also curious . The scientist notices things in the world (a star in the sky,
an insect, a happy person) and wants to know what it is and why it is that way. Science
involves asking questions, even very big questions such as where did the earth come from,
and how does love between two people endure for 50 years? Thinking like a psychologist
means opening your mind and imagination to wondering why things are the way they are.
In addition, scientists are skeptical (Stanovich, 2010). Skeptical people challenge whether
a supposed fact is really true. Being skeptical can mean questioning what “everybody
knows.” There was a time when “everybody knew” that women were morally inferior to
men, that race could in uence a person’s IQ, and that the earth was  at. Psychologists,
like all scientists, look at assumptions in new and questioning ways. Psychology is differ-
ent from common sense because psychologists are skeptical of commonsensical answers.
Psychological research often turns up the unexpected in human behavior. Such results
are called counterintuitive because they contradict our intuitive impressions of how the
world works. Consider the following study, which demonstrates how a little dose of nega-
tive information can actually make consumers feel more positive about a product (Ein-Gar,
Shiv, & Tormala, 2012). Students who were on their way to an exam were approached by
an experimenter offering to sell them chocolate bars. All of the participants were
told that the chocolate bars were a favorite among consumers, that they were
nicely chilled (the study was conducted on a hot day in California), and that
they were being offered at a special discount of only 50 cents. However, half
of the participants received one more piece of information: The chocolate
bars were just a little broken. The experimenter showed them an example
of a bar with minor breakage. Participants who were given this mild nega-
tive information ended up purchasing more chocolate bars than those who
heard only the positive information. Why?
The experimenters reasoned that when we have encountered positive
information about something, a little bit of negative information causes
us to stop and reconsider that positive information. We think about it more
and eventually come to evaluate a mildly “blemished” product as actually
really good. Note that these results were limited to students who were pre-
occupied by a test. Other students who were not thinking about a test bought
critical thinking
The process of thinking
deeply and actively, asking
questions, and evaluating
the evidence.
You might be wondering about
the names and dates in parentheses.
They are
research citations
that identify the authors of
particular studies and the year each
study was published. If you see an
especially interesting study, you
might look it up in the References
at the back of this book and c
heck it out online or in your
school’s library.
kin35341_ch01_001-041.indd Page 3 8/1/12 4:53 PM user-f502kin35341_ch01_001-041.indd Page 3 8/1/12 4:53 PM user-f502 /207/MH01822/kin35341_disk1of1/0078035341/kin35341_pagefiles/207/MH01822/kin35341_disk1of1/0078035341/kin35341_pagefiles
4 // CHAPTER 1 // The Science of Psychology
less chocolate when it was presented as broken. The researchers’ explanation is that when
we do not have time or energy to think things through, a minor blemish can enhance
evaluations of a product.
Last, practicing science also means being objective . Being objective involves trying
to see things as they really are, not just as the observer would like them to be. Scienti c
knowledge ultimately is based on objective evidence.
To gather objective evidence, scientists rely on empirical methods. An empirical method
involves gaining knowledge through the observation of events, the collection of data, and
logical reasoning. For scientists, objectivity means waiting to see what the evidence tells
them rather than going with their hunches. Does the latest herbal dietary supplement really
help relieve depression? A scientist would say, “That’s an empirical question,” meaning that
hard evidence is required to answer it. An objective thinker insists on sound evidence
before drawing conclusions. Like critical thinking, relying on evidence to provide
the foundation for conclusions means being open to uncertainty. Empirical
evidence provides the best answers to questions at any given moment.
Once you start to think like a psychologist, you might notice that the world
starts to look like a different place. Easy answers and simple assumptions will not
do. As you can probably imagine, psychologists, as a group, are people with many
different opinions about many different things. If a number of these critical thinkers
were to gather around a table, it is a safe bet that they would have a lively conversation.
Indeed, as you will see throughout this book, there are many things about which psy-
chologists disagree, and psychology (like any science) is  lled with debate and controversy.
For example, one controversy in psychology concerns the emergence of so-called Generation
Me (Twenge, 2006). Jean Twenge and her colleagues (Twenge, 2006; Twenge & Campbell,
2010) argue that Americans born since the 1980s are different from previous generations in
that they are unusually self-con dent, self-assertive, and self-centered. Based on her research
examining scores on questionnaires concerning narcissism (a condition of intense, unhealthy
self-love) over many years, Twenge (2006) refers to these individuals as Generation Me.
She suggests that we are in the midst of an epidemic of narcissism. Other psychologists,
however, sharply challenge this claim. In doing so, they present data showing no changes
in narcissism over the last three decades (Trzesniewski & Donnellan, 2010).
So, debate and controversy are a natural part of thinking like a psychologist. Psychol-
ogy has advanced as a  eld because psychologists do not always agree with one another
about why mind and behavior work the way they do. Psychologists have reached a more
accurate understanding of human behavior because psychology fosters controversies and
because psychologists think deeply and re ectively and examine the evidence on all
sides. A good place to try out your critical thinking skills is by revisiting
the de nition of psychology.
Psychology as the Science
of All Human Behavior
As you consider the general de nition of psychology as the science of
human behavior, you might be thinking, okay, where’s the couch?
Where’s the mental illness? Psychology certainly includes the study of
therapy and psychological disorders. Clinical psychologists in particular
are psychologists who specialize in studying and treating psychological
disorders. By de nition, though, psychology is a much more general
science (Shiraev, 2011), practiced in several environments in addition to
clinical settings (Figure 1.1). How did we end up with the idea that
psychology is only about mental illness? Surely, psychological disorders
are very interesting, and the media often portray psychologists as thera-
pists. Yet the view of psychology as the science of what is wrong with
people started long before TV was even invented.
empirical method
Gaining knowledge through
the observation of events,
the collection of data, and
logical reasoning.
This is why researchers
often say that a study “supports”
a particular prediction, but rarely
if ever say that it “proves”
Private practice
FIGURE 1.1 Settings in Which
Psychologists Work More psychologists
work in academic settings (34 percent), such
as colleges and universities, than any other
setting. However, clinical (24 percent) and
private practice (22 percent) settings—both of
which are contexts in which many psychologists
in the mental health professions work—together
make up almost half of the total settings.
kin35341_ch01_001-041.indd Page 4 8/1/12 4:53 PM user-f502kin35341_ch01_001-041.indd Page 4 8/1/12 4:53 PM user-f502 /207/MH01822/kin35341_disk1of1/0078035341/kin35341_pagefiles/207/MH01822/kin35341_disk1of1/0078035341/kin35341_pagefiles
Defining Psychology and Exploring Its Roots // 5
When they think of psychology, many people think of Sigmund Freud (1856–1939).
Freud believed that most of human behavior is caused by dark, unpleasant, uncon-
scious impulses pressing for expression. For Freud, even the average person
on the street is a mysterious well of unconscious desires. Certainly, Freud
has had a lasting impact on psychology and on society. Consider, though,
that Freud based his ideas about human nature on the patients that he
saw in his clinical practice—individuals who were struggling with psy-
chological problems. His experiences with these patients, as well as his
analysis of himself, colored his outlook on all of humanity. Freud once wrote,
“I have found little that is ‘good’ about human beings on the whole. In my experience
most of them are trash” (1918/1996).
Freud’s view of human nature has crept into general perceptions of what psychology
is all about. Imagine, for example, that you are seated on a plane, having a pleasant
conversation with the woman (a stranger) sitting next to you. At some point you ask your
seatmate what she does for a living, and she informs you she is a psychologist. You
might think to yourself, “Uh oh. What have I already told this person? What secrets does
she know about me that I don’t know about myself? Has she been analyzing me this
whole time?” Would you be surprised to discover that this psychologist studies happi-
ness? Or intelligence? Or the processes related to the experience of vision? The study
of psychological disorders is a very important aspect of psychology, but it represents
only one part of the science of psychology.
Psychology seeks to understand the truths of human life in all its dimensions, includ-
ing people’s best and worst experiences. Psychologists acknowledge the existence of long,
satisfying marital unions, as well as unmitigated disasters like Kim Kardashian’s short-lived
marriage. Research on the human capacity for forgiveness demonstrates this point (Balliet,
Li, & Joireman, 2011; McCullough, Kurzban, & Tabak, 2011; McCullough & others,
2010). Forgiveness is the act of letting go of anger and resentment toward someone who
has done something harmful to us. Through forgiveness we cease seeking revenge or
avoiding the person who did us harm, and we might even wish that person well.
In October 2006, after Charles Carl Roberts took 10 young Amish girls hostage in a
one-room schoolhouse in Pennsylvania, eventually killing 5 of them and wounding
5 others before killing himself, the grief-stricken Amish community focused not on
hatred and revenge but on forgiveness. As funds were being set up for the victims’
families, the Amish insisted on establishing one for the murderer’s family. They prepared
simple funerals for the dead girls, and the community invited the killer’s wife to attend.
The science of psychology has much to offer to our understanding not only of the violent
acts of the perpetrator but also of the forgiveness of the victims.
The willingness of these Amish people to forgive this horrible
crime is both remarkable and puzzling. Can we scienti cally under-
stand the human ability to forgive even what might seem to be unfor-
givable? A number of psychologists have taken up the topic of
forgiveness in research and clinical practice (Jacinto & Edwards,
2011; Worthington & others, 2011). Michael McCullough and his
colleagues (McCullough & others, 2010) have shown that the capac-
ity to forgive is an unfolding process that often takes time. For the
Amish, their deep religious faith led them to embrace forgiveness,
while many others might have been motivated to seek revenge and
retribution. Researchers also have explored the relationship between
religious commitment and forgiveness (McCullough, Bono, & Root,
2007), the cognitive skills required for forgiveness (Pronk & others,
2010), and even the potential dark side of forgiveness, which might
emerge, for example, when forgiveness leads an abusive spouse to
feel free to continue a harmful behavior (McNulty, 2011).
Some psychologists argue that the  eld has focused too much on
the negative aspects of humanity and neglected topics that re ect
the best of human life (Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000; Snyder,
You have probably heard
of a “Freudian slip.” Freud’s name
has become part of our everyday
The murder in 2006 of fi ve Amish schoolgirls
evoked feelings in the community not of hatred
and revenge but of forgiveness.
kin35341_ch01_001-041.indd Page 5 8/1/12 4:53 PM user-f502kin35341_ch01_001-041.indd Page 5 8/1/12 4:53 PM user-f502 /207/MH01822/kin35341_disk1of1/0078035341/kin35341_pagefiles/207/MH01822/kin35341_disk1of1/0078035341/kin35341_pagefiles
6 // CHAPTER 1 // The Science of Psychology
Lopez, & Pedrotti, 2010). Others insist that human weaknesses are the most important
aspects of life to study (Lazarus, 2003). The fact is that to be a truly general science of
human behavior, psychology must address all sides of human experience. Surely, con-
troversy is a part of any science. Healthy debate characterizes the  eld of psychology,
and a new psychological perspective sometimes arises when one scientist questions the
views of another. Such ongoing debate is a sign of a lively discipline. Indeed, the very
birth of the  eld was marked by debate. Great minds do not always think alike, especially
when they are thinking about psychology.
Psychology in Historical Perspective
Psychology seeks to answer questions that people have been asking for thousands of
years—for example:
How do we learn?
What is memory?
Why does one person grow and  ourish while another struggles?
The notion that such questions might be answered through scienti c inquiry is rela-
tively new. From the time human language included the word why and became rich
enough to let people talk about the past, we have been creating myths to explain why
things are the way they are. Ancient myths attributed most important events to the
pleasure or displeasure of the gods: When a volcano erupted, the gods were angry; if
two people fell in love, they had been struck by Cupid’s arrows. Gradually, myths gave
way to philosophy —the rational investigation of the underlying principles of being and
knowledge. People attempted to explain events in terms of natural rather than super-
natural causes.
Western philosophy came of age in ancient Greece in the fourth and  fth centuries
... Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, and others debated the nature of thought and behavior,
including the possible link between the mind and the body. Later philosophers, especially
René Descartes, argued that the mind and body were completely separate, and they
focused their attention on the mind. Psychology grew out of this tradition of thinking
about the mind and body. The in uence of philosophy on contemporary psychology per-
sists today, as researchers who study emotion still talk about Descartes, and scientists who
study happiness often refer to Aristotle (McMahan & Estes, 2011).
In addition to philosophy, psychology also has roots in the natural sciences
of biology and physiology (Schultz & Schultz, 2012). Indeed, it was Wilhelm
Wundt (1832–1920), a German philosopher-physician, who put the pieces of
the philosophy–natural science puzzle together to create the academic disci-
pline of psychology. Some historians like to say that modern psychology was
born in December 1879 at the University of Leipzig, when Wundt and his
students (most notably E. B. Titchener) performed an experiment to measure
the time lag between the instant a person heard a sound and when that per-
son pressed a telegraph key to signal that he had heard it.
What was so special about this experiment? Wundt’s study was about the
workings of the brain: He was trying to measure the time it took the human
brain and nervous system to translate information into action. At the heart of
this experiment was the idea that mental processes could be measured. This
focus ushered in the new science of psychology.
Wundt and his collaborators concentrated on discovering the basic ele-
ments, or “structures,” of mental processes. Their approach was called struc-
turalism because of its focus on identifying the structures of the human
mind. The method they used in the study of mental structures was introspec-
tion (literally, “looking inside”). For this type of research, a person was
placed in a laboratory setting and was asked to think (to introspect) about
what was going on mentally as various events took place. For example, the
Wundt’s approach
to discovering the
basic elements,
or structures, of
mental processes.
Wilhelm Wundt (1832–1920)
Wundt founded the fi rst psychology
laboratory (with his two co-workers) in
1879 at the University of Leipzig in
kin35341_ch01_001-041.indd Page 6 8/1/12 4:53 PM user-f502kin35341_ch01_001-041.indd Page 6 8/1/12 4:53 PM user-f502 /207/MH01822/kin35341_disk1of1/0078035341/kin35341_pagefiles/207/MH01822/kin35341_disk1of1/0078035341/kin35341_pagefiles
Defining Psychology and Exploring Its Roots // 7
individual might be subjected to a sharp, repetitive clicking sound and then
might be asked to report whatever conscious feelings the clicking produced.
What made this method scienti c was the systematic, detailed self-reports
required of the person in the controlled laboratory setting.
Although Wundt is most often regarded as the founding father of
modern psychology, it was psychologist and philosopher William James
(1842–1910), perhaps more than anyone else, who gave the  eld an
American stamp. From James’s perspective, the key question for
psychology is not so much what the mind is (that is, its structures) as
what it is for (its purpose or function). James’s view was eventually
named functionalism .
In contrast to structuralism, which emphasized the components of the
mind, functionalism probed the functions and purposes of the mind and behav-
ior in the individual’s adaptation to the environment. Whereas structuralists were look-
ing inside the mind and searching for its structures, functionalists focused on what was
going on in human interactions with the outside world and trying to understand the
purpose of thoughts. If structuralism is about the “what” of the mind, functionalism is
about the “why.
A central question in functionalism is, why is human thought adaptive ? When we talk
about whether a characteristic is adaptive, we are concerned with how it makes an organ-
ism better able to survive. So, the functionalist asks, why are people better off because
they can think than they would be otherwise? Unlike Wundt, James did not believe in the
existence of rigid structures of the mind. Instead, James saw the mind as  exible and
uid, characterized by constant change in response to a continuous  ow of information
from the world. Not surprisingly, James called the natural  ow of thought a “stream of
Functionalism t well with the theory of evolution through natural selection proposed
by British naturalist Charles Darwin (1809–1882). In 1859, Darwin published his ideas
in On the Origin of Species . He proposed the principle of natural selection , an evolu-
tionary process in which organisms that are best adapted to their environment will survive
and, importantly, produce offspring. Darwin noted that members of any species are often
locked in competition for scarce resources such as food and shelter. Natural selection is
the process by which the environment determines who wins that competition. Darwin
asserted that organisms with biological features that led to survival and reproduction
would be better represented in subsequent generations. Over many generations, organ-
isms with these characteristics would constitute a larger percentage of the population.
Eventually this process could change an entire species. If environmental conditions
changed, however, other characteristics might become favored by natural selection,
moving the process in a different direction.
If you are unfamiliar with Darwin’s theory of evolution, it might be help-
ful to consider the simple question, why do giraffes have long necks? An
early explanation might have been that giraffes live in places where the trees
are very tall, and so the creatures must stretch their necks to get their food—
leaves. Lots of stretching might lead to adult giraffes that have longer necks.
This explanation does not tell us, though, why giraffes are born with long
necks. A characteristic cannot be passed from one generation to the next
unless it is recorded in the genes, those collections of molecules that are
responsible for heredity.
According to evolutionary theory, species change through random genetic
mutation. That means that essentially by accident, some members of a species
are born with genetic characteristics that make them different from other
members (for instance, some lucky giraffes being born with unusually long
necks). If these changes are adaptive (for example, if they help those giraffes
compete for food, survive, and reproduce), they become more common in
members of the species. So, presumably long, long ago, some giraffes were
genetically predisposed to have longer necks, and some giraffes were genet-
ically predisposed to have shorter necks. Only those with the long necks
James’s approach
to mental pro-
cesses, emphasiz-
ing the functions
and purposes
of the mind and
behavior in the
adaptation to
the environment.
natural selection
Darwin’s principle
of an evolutionary
process in which
organisms that
are best adapted
to their environ-
ment will survive
and produce
Introspection has
its limits. Many behaviors are
hard to explain using introspection.
T hink about talking, for example. You
somehow know where you are heading
even as the words are tumbling out
of your mouth, but you cannot
say where those words are
coming from.
William James (1842–1910)
James’s approach became known as
kin35341_ch01_001-041.indd Page 7 8/1/12 4:53 PM user-f502kin35341_ch01_001-041.indd Page 7 8/1/12 4:53 PM user-f502 /207/MH01822/kin35341_disk1of1/0078035341/kin35341_pagefiles/207/MH01822/kin35341_disk1of1/0078035341/kin35341_pagefiles
8 // CHAPTER 1 // The Science of Psychology
survived to reproduce, giving us the giraffes we see today. The survival of the
giraffes with long necks is a product of natural selection. Evolutionary theory
implies that the way we are, at least partially, is the way that is best suited to
survival in our environment (Buss, 2012).
Darwin’s theory continues to in uence psychologists today because it is
strongly supported by observation. We can make such observations every day. Right
now, for example, in your kitchen sink, various bacteria are locked in competition
for scarce resources in the form of those tempting food particles from your last meal.
When you use an antibacterial cleaner, you are playing a role in natural selection, because
you are effectively killing off the bacteria that cannot survive the cleaning agents. However,
you are also letting the bacteria that are genetically adapted to survive that cleaner to take
over the sink. The same principle applies to taking an antibiotic medication at the  rst sign
of a sore throat or an earache. By killing off the bacteria that may be causing the illness, you
are creating an environment where their competitors (so-called antibiotic-resistant bacteria)
may  ourish. These observations powerfully demonstrate Darwinian selection in action.
If structuralism won the battle to be the birthplace of psychology, functionalism
won the war. To this day, psychologists continue to talk about the adaptive nature of
human characteristics. Indeed, from these beginnings, psychologists have branched out
to study more aspects of human behavior than Wundt or James might have imagined.
We now examine various contemporary approaches to the science of psychology.
It turns out that
giraffes don’t eat food from tall
trees. They use their long necks
to fight!
1. The one correct statement among the
following is
A. there are many controversies in the
eld of psychology.
B. psychologists on the whole agree
among themselves on most aspects
of the fi eld.
C. psychologists do not engage in
critical thinking.
D. there are few controversies in the
eld of psychology.
2. Of the following, the characteristic that
is not at the heart of the scientific
approach is
A. skepticism.
B. critical thinking.
C. prejudging.
D. curiosity.
3. Charles Darwin’s work is relevant to psy-
chology because
A. Darwin’s research demonstrated that
there are few differences between
humans and animals.
B. Darwin’s principle of natural selec-
tion suggests that human behavior is
partially a result of efforts to survive.
C. Darwin stated that humans de-
scended from apes, a principle that
allows psychologists to understand
human behavior.
D. Darwin created functionalism.
APPLY IT 4. Two psychologists, Clayton
and Sam, are interested in studying emo-
tional expressions. Clayton wants to deter-
mine whether emotional expression is
healthy and if it has an influence on well-
being. Sam is interested in describing the
types of emotions people express and build-
ing a catalog of all the emotions and
emotional expressions that exist. In this
example, Clayton is most like _________
and Sam is most like _________.
A. Wilhelm Wundt; William James
B. William James; Wilhelm Wundt
C. Wilhelm Wundt; Sigmund Freud
D. Sigmund Freud; Wilhelm Wundt
In this section we survey seven different approaches—biological, behavioral, psychody-
namic, humanistic, cognitive, evolutionary, and sociocultural—that represent the intel-
lectual backdrop of psychological science.
The Biological Approach
Some psychologists examine behavior and mental processes through the biological approach ,
which is a focus on the body, especially the brain and nervous system. For example, research-
ers might investigate the way your heart races when you are afraid or how your hands sweat
when you tell a lie. Although a number of physiological systems may be involved in thoughts
biological approach
An approach to psychology
focusing on the body, espe-
cially the brain and nervous
Contemporary Approaches
to Psychology
kin35341_ch01_001-041.indd Page 8 8/1/12 4:53 PM user-f502kin35341_ch01_001-041.indd Page 8 8/1/12 4:53 PM user-f502 /207/MH01822/kin35341_disk1of1/0078035341/kin35341_pagefiles/207/MH01822/kin35341_disk1of1/0078035341/kin35341_pagefiles
Contemporary Approaches to Psychology // 9
Richard J. Davidson of the University of Wisconsin, Madison,
shown with the Dalai Lama, is a leading researcher in behavioral
and feelings, perhaps the largest contribution to physi-
ological psychology has come through the emergence
of neuroscience (Bavelier & others, 2012; Koch, 2011).
Neuroscience is the scienti c study of the struc-
ture, function, development, genetics, and biochem-
istry of the nervous system. Neuroscience emphasizes
that the brain and nervous system are central to
understanding behavior, thought, and emotion.
Neuroscientists believe that thoughts and emotions
have a physical basis in the brain. Electrical impulses
zoom throughout the brain’s cells, releasing chemi-
cal substances that enable us to think, feel, and
behave. Our remarkable human capabilities would
not be possible without the brain and nervous sys-
tem, which constitute the most complex, intricate,
and elegant system imaginable. Although biological
approaches might sometimes seem to reduce com-
plex human experience to simple physical structures,
developments in neuroscience have allowed psychol-
ogists to understand the brain as an amazingly
complex organ, perhaps just as complex as the psy-
chological processes linked to its functioning.
The Behavioral Approach
The behavioral approach emphasizes the scienti c study of observable behavioral
responses and their environmental determinants. It focuses on an organism’s visible inter-
actions with the environment—that is, behaviors, not thoughts or feelings. The principles
of the behavioral approach have been widely applied to help people change their behav-
ior for the better (Miltenberger, 2012). The psychologists who adopt this approach are
called behaviorists . Under the intellectual leadership of John B. Watson (1878–1958) and
B. F. Skinner (1904–1990), behaviorism dominated psychological research during the
rst half of the twentieth century.
Skinner (1938) emphasized that psychology should be about what people do—their
actions and behaviors—and should not concern itself with things that cannot be seen, such
as thoughts, feelings, and goals. He believed that rewards and punishments determine our
behavior. For example, a child might behave in a well-mannered fashion because her
parents have rewarded this behavior. We do the things we do, say behaviorists, because
of the environmental conditions we have experienced and continue to experience.
Contemporary behaviorists still emphasize the importance of observing behavior to
understand an individual, and they use rigorous methods advocated by Watson and
Skinner (Rehfeldt, 2011). They also continue to stress the importance of environmental
determinants of behavior (Martin & Pear, 2011). However, not every behaviorist today
accepts the earlier behaviorists’ rejection of thought processes, which are often called
cogn i tion (Bandura, 2011).
The Psychodynamic Approach
The psychodynamic approach emphasizes unconscious thought, the con ict between
biological drives (such as the drive for sex) and society’s demands, and early childhood
family experiences. Practitioners of this approach believe that sexual and aggressive
impulses buried deep within the unconscious mind in uence the way people think, feel,
and behave.
The scientifi c
study of the
structure, func-
tion, develop-
ment, genetics,
and biochemistry
of the nervous
system, empha-
sizing that the
brain and ner-
vous system
are central to
thought, and
behavioral approach
An approach to psychology
emphasizing the scientifi c
study of observable
behavioral responses
and their environmental
psychodynamic approach
An approach to psychology
emphasizing unconscious
thought, the confl ict be-
tween biological drives
(such as the drive for sex)
and society’s demands,
and early childhood family
kin35341_ch01_001-041.indd Page 9 8/1/12 4:53 PM user-f502kin35341_ch01_001-041.indd Page 9 8/1/12 4:53 PM user-f502 /207/MH01822/kin35341_disk1of1/0078035341/kin35341_pagefiles/207/MH01822/kin35341_disk1of1/0078035341/kin35341_pagefiles
10 // CHAPTER 1 // The Science of Psychology
Sigmund Freud, the founding father of the psychodynamic approach, theo-
rized that early relationships with parents shape an individual’s personality.
Freud’s theory (1917) was the basis for the therapeutic technique that he called
psychoanalysis, which involves an analyst’s unlocking a person’s unconscious
con icts by talking with the individual about his or her childhood memories,
dreams, thoughts, and feelings. Certainly, Freud’s views have been controver-
sial, but they remain a part of contemporary psychology. Today’s psychody-
namic theories tend to place less emphasis on sexual drives and more on
cultural or social experiences as determinants of behavior (Borden & Clark,
The Humanistic Approach
The humanistic approach emphasizes a person’s positive qualities, the
capacity for positive growth, and the freedom to choose one’s destiny.
Humanistic psychologists stress that people have the ability to control their
lives and are not simply controlled by the environment (Maslow, 1971;
Rogers, 1961). They theorize that rather than being driven by unconscious
impulses (as the psychodynamic approach dictates) or by external rewards
(as the behavioral approach emphasizes), people can choose to live by higher human
values such as altruism —unsel sh concern for other people’s well-being—and free will.
Many aspects of this optimistic approach appear in research on motivation, emotion, and
personality psychology (Sheldon, Cheng, & Hilpert, 2011; Sheldon & Schüler, 2011).
The Cognitive Approach
According to cognitive psychologists, your brain houses a “mind” whose mental processes
allow you to remember, make decisions, plan, set goals, and be creative (Friedenberg &
Silverman, 2012; Sternberg, 2012a, 2012b). The cognitive approach , then, emphasizes
the mental processes involved in knowing: how we direct our attention,
perceive, remember, think, and solve problems. For example, cognitive
psychologists want to know how we solve math problems, why we
remember some things for only a short time but others for a lifetime,
and how we can use our imaginations to plan for the future.
Cognitive psychologists view the mind as an active and aware
problem-solving system. This view contrasts with the behavioral out-
look, which portrays behavior as controlled by external environmental
forces. In the cognitive perspective, an individual’s mental processes
are in control of behavior through memories, perceptions, images, and
The Evolutionary Approach
Although arguably all of psychology emerges out of evolutionary
theory, some psychologists emphasize an evolutionary approach that
uses evolutionary ideas such as adaptation, reproduction, and natural
selection as the basis for explaining speci c human behaviors. David
Buss (2012) argues that just as evolution molds our physical features,
such as body shape, it also in uences our decision making, level of
aggressiveness, fears, and mating patterns. Thus, evolutionary psy-
chologists say, the way we are is traceable to problems early humans
faced in adapting to their environments (Cosmides, 2011).
An approach to
emphasizing a
person’s positive
qualities, the
capacity for
positive growth,
and the freedom
to choose one’s
cognitive approach
An approach to
emphasizing the
mental processes
involved in
knowing: how
we direct our
attention, per-
ceive, remember,
think, and solve
An approach to
centered on
ideas such as
reproduction, and
natural selection
as the basis for
specifi c human
According to humanistic psychologists, warm,
supportive behavior toward others helps
us to realize our tremendous capacity for
Sigmund Freud (1856–1939)
Freud was the founding father of the
psychodynamic approach.
kin35341_ch01_001-041.indd Page 10 8/1/12 4:53 PM user-f502kin35341_ch01_001-041.indd Page 10 8/1/12 4:53 PM user-f502 /207/MH01822/kin35341_disk1of1/0078035341/kin35341_pagefiles/207/MH01822/kin35341_disk1of1/0078035341/kin35341_pagefiles
Contemporary Approaches to Psychology // 11
Evolutionary psychologists believe that their approach provides an umbrella that
uni es the diverse  elds of psychology (Bjorklund, 2012). Not all psychologists
agree with this conclusion, however. For example, some critics stress that the
evolutionary approach provides an inaccurate explanation of why men and
women have different social roles, and it does not adequately account for
cultural diversity and experiences (Matlin, 2012; Wood & Eagly, 2010). Yet
keep in mind that even psychologists who disagree with the application of
the evolutionary approach to psychological characteristics still agree with
the general principles of evolutionary theory.
The Sociocultural Approach
The sociocultural approach examines the in uences of social and cultural
environments on behavior. Socioculturalists argue that understanding a per-
son’s behavior requires knowing about the cultural context in which the behav-
ior occurs (Matsumoto & Juang, 2013; Matthews & Gallo, 2011). ( Culture refers
to the shared knowledge, practices, and attitudes of groups of people and can
include language, customs, and beliefs about what behavior is appropriate and inap-
propriate.) The sociocultural approach often includes cross-cultural research, meaning
research that compares individuals in various cultures to see how they differ on important
psychological attributes. Cross-cultural research is important for testing the assumption
that  ndings for one culture also generalize to other cultural contexts, and as such it
allows psychologists to test for the possibility that some characteristics are universal (Cai
& others, 2011).
The sociocultural approach focuses not only on comparisons of behavior across coun-
tries but also on the behavior of individuals from different ethnic and cultural groups within
a country (Cheah & Leung, 2011). In light of rising cultural diversity in the United States
in recent years, there has been increasing interest in the behavior of African Americans,
Latinos, and Asian Americans, especially in terms of the factors that have restricted or
enhanced their ability to adapt and cope with living in a predominantly non-Latino White
society (Aguayo & others, 2011; Banks, 2010). The in uence of culture on behavior has
led to important  ndings about psychological processes and especially about the role of
culture in the psychological experience of our own sense of self (Wan & others, 2011).
Summing up the Seven
Contemporary Approaches
These seven approaches to studying psychology provide different views of behavior, and
therefore each may contribute uniquely valuable insights. Think about the simple experi-
ence of seeing a cute puppy. Looking at that puppy involves physical processes in the eyes,
nervous system, and brain—the focus of the biological approach to psychology. The
moment you spot that puppy, though, you might smile without thinking and reach down
to pet the little guy. That reaction might be a learned response based on your past learning
with your own dog (behavioral perspective), or unconscious memories of a childhood dog
(psychodynamic perspective), or conscious memories that you especially like this breed of
dogs (cognitive perspective), or even evolutionary processes that promoted cuteness to help
offspring survive (evolutionary approach). You might  nd yourself striking up a conversa-
tion with the puppy’s owner, based on your shared love of dogs (humanistic perspective).
Further, sociocultural factors might play a role in your decision about whether to ask the
owner if holding the puppy would be okay, whether to share those warm feelings about
the puppy with others, and even whether (as in some cultures) to view that puppy as food.
These broad approaches are re ected in the variety of specialties within which psy-
chologists work (Figure 1.2). Many of these specialties are represented by chapters in
An approach to
psychology that
examines the
infl uences of so-
cial and cultural
environments on
Human beings originally
evolved long ago in a very
different environment than we
occupy today. The survivors were
those who were most able to endure
extremely difficult circumstances,
struggling to find food, avoid
predators, and create social groups.
What do you think were the most
adaptive traits for these early
people? To what specific
environments are humans
adapting even now?
kin35341_ch01_001-041.indd Page 11 8/1/12 4:53 PM user-f502kin35341_ch01_001-041.indd Page 11 8/1/12 4:53 PM user-f502 /207/MH01822/kin35341_disk1of1/0078035341/kin35341_pagefiles/207/MH01822/kin35341_disk1of1/0078035341/kin35341_pagefiles
12 // CHAPTER 1 // The Science of Psychology
Focus of Specialists
Specialization and Relevant
Chapters in This Book
Behavioral neuroscience focuses on biological processes, especially the brain’s role in behavior.
Learning specialists study the complex process by which behavior changes to adapt to shifting
Developmental psychology examines how people become who they are, from conception to death,
concentrating on biological and environmental factors.
Sensation and perception researchers focus on the physical systems and psychological processes of
vision, hearing, touch, and smell that allow us to experience the world.
Cognitive psychology examines attention, consciousness, information processing, and memory. Cognitive
psychologists are also interested in cognitive skills and abilities such as problem solving, decision making,
expertise, and intelligence.
Researchers from a variety of specializations are interested in these two aspects of experience. Motivation
researchers examine questions such as how individuals attain difficult goals. Emotion researchers study
the physiological and brain processes that underlie emotional experience, the role of emotional
expression in health, and the possibility that emotions are universal.
Social psychology studies how social contexts influence perceptions, social cognition, and attitudes.
Social psychologists study how groups influence attitudes and behavior.
Clinical and counseling psychology, the most widely practiced specialization, involves diagnosing and
treating people with psychological problems.
Personality psychology focuses on the relatively enduring characteristics of individuals, including traits,
goals, motives, genetics, and personality development.
I/O psychology applies findings in all areas of psychology to the workplace.
Health psychology emphasizes psychological factors, lifestyle, and behavior that influence physical health.
School and educational psychology centrally concerns children’s learning and adjustment in school.
School psychologists in elementary and secondary school systems test children and make
recommendations about educational placement, and work on educational planning teams.
Psychology of women stresses the importance of integrating information about women with current
psychological knowledge and applying that information to society and its institutions.
Community psychology is concerned with providing accessible care for people with psychological
problems. Community-based mental health centers are one means of delivering such services as outreach
Environmental psychologists explore the effects of physical settings in most major areas of psychology,
including perception, cognition, learning, and others. An environmental psychologist might study how
different room arrangements influence behavior or what strategies might be used to reduce human
behavior that harms the environment.
Forensic psychology applies psychology to the legal system. Forensic psychologists might help with jury
selection or provide expert testimony in trials.
Cross-cultural psychology studies culture’s role in understanding behavior, thought, and emotion, with a
special interest in whether psychological phenomena are universal or culture-specific.
Sport psychology applies psychology to improving sport performance and enjoyment of sport
Behavioral Neuroscience
(Chapter 2)
(Chapter 5)
(Chapter 8)
Sensation and Perception
(Chapter 3)
(Chapters 4, 6, & 7)
Motivation and Emotion
(Chapter 9)
(Chapter 11)
Clinical and Counseling
(Chapters 12 & 13)
(Chapter 10)
Industrial and Organizational (I/O)
(Chapter 14)
School and Educational
Psychology of Women
FIGURE 1.2 Areas of Specialization in Psychology Psychology has many overlapping sub elds.
kin35341_ch01_001-041.indd Page 12 8/1/12 4:53 PM user-f502kin35341_ch01_001-041.indd Page 12 8/1/12 4:53 PM user-f502 /207/MH01822/kin35341_disk1of1/0078035341/kin35341_pagefiles/207/MH01822/kin35341_disk1of1/0078035341/kin35341_pagefiles
Psychology’s Scientific Method // 13
this book. As you read the text, keep in mind that psychology is a science in which
psychologists work together collaboratively to examine a wide range of research ques-
tions. Indeed, many times scholars from different specialties within psychology join
forces to understand some aspect of human behavior. It is the purpose of this book’s
Intersection feature to review research that represents a collaboration among scientists
from different specialties to answer the same question.
1. The approach to psychology that is most
interested in early childhood relation-
ships is
A. evolutionary psychology.
B. cognitive psychology.
C. psychodynamic psychology.
D. behavioral psychology.
2. The approach to psychology that views
psychological distress as a result of
persistent negative thoughts is
A. the humanistic approach.
B. the behavioral approach.
C. the sociocultural approach.
D. the cognitive approach.
3. The approach to psychology that
focuses on self-fulfillment, altruism,
and personal growth is
A. the cognitive approach.
B. the behavioral approach.
C. the psychodynamic approach.
D. the humanistic approach.
APPLY IT 4. In 2007 a father posted a
video clip of his young sons on YouTube.
Widely known as “Charlie Bit My Finger,” the
clip, which quickly went viral, shows a British
baby laughing hysterically as he bites his
crying brother’s finger. The clip is the most
viewed nonprofessional music video on
YouTube. If you haven’t seen it, take a look:
he5fpsmH_2g. What explains the clip’s endur-
ing appeal? Each of the contemporary ap-
proaches we have reviewed might offer an
explanation. Which of the following is most
like what a psychodynamic thinker might say?
A. Human beings have been rewarded for
watching children bite each other.
B. Adorable children are universally loved.
C. Human beings have an unconscious
desire to harm their siblings, which
is disguised by the humor of the clip.
D. This clip demonstrates that cuteness is an
important adaptation . Cute kids are more
likely to survive and reproduce.
Science is not de ned by what it investigates but by how it investigates. Whether you
study photosynthesis, butter ies, Saturn’s moons, or happiness, the way you study your
question of interest determines whether your approach is scienti c. The scienti c method
is how psychologists gain knowledge about mind and behavior. A key theme in the
scienti c method is that knowledge comes from empirical research.
It is the use of the scienti c method that makes psychology a science
(Ray, 2012). Indeed, most of the studies psychologists publish in research journals
follow the scienti c method, which may be summarized in these  ve steps
(Figure 1.3):
1. Observing some phenomenon
2. Formulating hypotheses and predictions
3. Testing through empirical research
4. Drawing conclusions
5. Evaluating conclusions
. OBSERVING SOME PHENOMENON The rst step in conducting a
scienti c inquiry involves observing some phenomenon in the world. The critical-
thinking, curious psychologist sees something and wants to know why or how it
is the way it is. Inspiration for scienti c inquiry can come from contemporary
social problems, current events, personal experiences, and more. The phenomena
that scientists study are called variables, a word related to the verb to vary. A
variable is anything that can change.
For example, one variable that interests psychologists is happiness. Some
people seem to be happier than others. What might account for these
Anything that can
Psychologys Scientifi c
Science is defi ned not by what it
studies but by how it investigates.
Photosynthesis, butterfl ies, and
relationships among people all can
be studied in a scientifi c manner.
kin35341_ch01_001-041.indd Page 13 8/1/12 4:53 PM user-f502kin35341_ch01_001-041.indd Page 13 8/1/12 4:53 PM user-f502 /207/MH01822/kin35341_disk1of1/0078035341/kin35341_pagefiles/207/MH01822/kin35341_disk1of1/0078035341/kin35341_pagefiles
14 // CHAPTER 1 // The Science of Psychology
spend on yourself
spend on someone else
Observing Some
We feel good when we
give someone a gift.
However, do we genuinely
feel better giving some-
thing away than we might
feel if we could keep it?
Elizabeth Dunn, Lara
Aknin, and Michael Norton
(2008) decided to test this
Formulating Hypoth-
eses and Predictions
These researchers
hypothesized that
spending money on
other people would lead
to greater happiness
than spending money on
Testing Through Empirical
In an experiment designed to
examine this prediction, the
researchers randomly assigned
undergraduate participants
to receive money ($5 or $20)
that they had to spend
either on themselves or on
someone else by 5 P. M . that
day. Those who spent the
money on someone else
reported greater happiness
that night.
Drawing Conclusions
The experiment supported
the hypothesis that spend-
ing money on others can
be a strong predictor of
happiness. Money might
not buy happiness, the
researchers concluded, but
spending money in a
particular way, that is, on
other people, may
enhance happiness.
Evaluating Conclusions
The experimental results
were published in the
prestigious journal Science.
Now that the findings are
public, other researchers
might investigate related
topics and questions
inspired by this work, and
their experiments might
shed further light on the
original conclusions.
differences? As scientists consider answers to such questions, they often develop theo-
ries. A theory is a broad idea or set of closely related ideas that attempts to explain
observations. Theories seek to explain why certain things are as they are or why
they have happened, and they can be used to make predictions about future
observations. For instance, some psychologists theorize that the most impor-
tant human need is the need to belong to a social group (Leary & Guadagno,
2011). This theory would seek to explain human behaviors through the need
to belong.
A key characteristic of a scienti c theory is that it must be falsi able, meaning
that even a scientist who believes that a theory is true must be able to generate ideas
about research that would prove the theory wrong and test those ideas. This is what
separates scienti c theories from beliefs and opinions.
in the scienti c method is stating a hypothesis. A hypothesis is a testable prediction that
derives logically from a theory. A theory can generate many hypotheses. If more and
more hypotheses related to a theory turn out to be true, the theory gains in credibility.
So, a researcher who believes that social belonging is the most important aspect of human
A broad idea
or set of closely
related ideas
that attempts to
explain observa-
tions and to
make predictions
about future
A testable
prediction that
derives logically
from a theory.
FIGURE 1.3 Steps in the Scientific Method: Is It Better to Give Than to Receive? This  gure shows how the steps in the
scienti c method were applied in a research experiment examining how spending money on ourselves or others can in uence happiness (Dunn, Aknin,
& Norton, 2008). The researchers theorized that although money does not typically buy happiness, the way we spend it might well predict happy
feelings. > For each step in the process, what decisions did the researchers make, and how did those decisions in uence the research? > Are the
ndings counterintuitive or not? > This study was inspired by the saying “It is better to give than to receive. Does the study do a good job of
evaluating that cliché? How else might a researcher have addressed this question?
A scientist must be
able to anticipate being wrong
and remain open to that
Scientifi c Method
kin35341_ch01_001-041.indd Page 14 8/1/12 4:53 PM user-f502kin35341_ch01_001-041.indd Page 14 8/1/12 4:53 PM user-f502 /207/MH01822/kin35341_disk1of1/0078035341/kin35341_pagefiles/207/MH01822/kin35341_disk1of1/0078035341/kin35341_pagefiles
Psychology’s Scientific Method // 15
functioning might predict that people who belong to social groups will be happier than
others, or might hypothesize that individuals who are excluded by a social group will be
more aggressive. Each of these hypotheses would lead to speci c predictions within a
particular empirical study.
scienti c method is to test the hypotheses by conducting empirical research—thatis, by
collecting and analyzing data. At this point, it is time for the researcher to design a study
that will test his or her predictions. We will review the speci cs of various research
methods for testing predictions later in this chapter. Whatever the method used to
test a prediction, the  rst thing a researcher needs in order to conduct a study
is a concrete way to measure the variables of interest.
An operational definition provides an objective description of how
a variable is going to be measured and observed in a particular study.
Such a definition eliminates the fuzziness that might creep into
thinking about a problem. Imagine, for example, that your psychol-
ogy class is asked to observe a group of children and to keep track
of kind behaviors. Do you think that everyone will define “kind
behaviors” in the same way? An operational definition allows the
class to be sure that everyone agrees on what a variable means. To
measure personal happiness, for example, prominent psychologist Ed
Diener and his students (Diener & others, 1985) devised a self-report
questionnaire that measures how satisfied a person is with his or her life,
called the Satisfaction with Life Scale. You will get a chance to complete the
questionnaire later in this chapter. Scores on this scale are then used as measures
of happiness. Research using this scale and others like it has shown that certain
specific factors are strongly related to being happy: marriage, religious faith, pur-
pose in life, and good health (Diener, 1999; Diener & Chan, 2011; Pavot &
Diener, 2008).
Importantly, there is not just one operational definition for any variable.
For example, in a study that examined happiness as a predictor of impor-
tant life outcomes, Lee Anne Harker and Dacher Keltner (2001) looked
at the yearbook pictures of college women who had graduated three
decades earlier. They coded the pictures for the appearance of
Duchenne smiling— that is, genuine smiling, the kind that creates
little wrinkles around the outer corner of the eyes. Duchenne smiling
has been shown to be a sign of genuine happiness. (If you want to
see whether someone in a photograph is smiling genuinely,
cover the bottom ofthe person’s face. Can you still tell
that he or she is smiling?A genuine smile can be seen
in the eyes, not just the mouth.) So, while Diener and
colleagues operationally defined happiness as a score
on a questionnaire, Harker and Keltner operationally
defined happiness as Duchenne smiling. Harker and
Keltner found that happiness, as displayed in these
yearbook pictures, predicted positive life outcomes,
such as successful marriages and satisfying lives,
some 30 years later.
Coming up with operational de nitions for the vari-
ables in a study is a crucial step in designing psycho-
logical research. To study anything, we must have a
way to see it or measure it. Clearly, to devise an oper-
ational de nition for any variable, we  rst must agree
on what it is that we are trying to measure. If we think
defi nition
A defi nition that
provides an ob-
jective description
of how a variable
is going to be
measured and
observed in a
particular study.
Try operationally
defining the following variables:
generosity, love, aggression,
liberal, conservative, exhaustion,
stress, attractiveness. What
are some things that
interesting that you think a
psychologist should study?
How might you operationally
define these variables?
are t
en use
as measures
as s
own t
at certa
age, re
, pur
an, 2011; Pavot &
n for any variable.
redictor of impor
raduated three
ppearance of
that creates
nne smiling
you want to
Researchers have identifi ed Duchenne smiling (notice the
wrinkles) as a sign of genuine happiness.
kin35341_ch01_001-041.indd Page 15 8/19/12 2:24 PM user-f502kin35341_ch01_001-041.indd Page 15 8/19/12 2:24 PM user-f502 /207/MH01822/kin35341_disk1of1/0078035341/kin35341_pagefiles/207/MH01822/kin35341_disk1of1/0078035341/kin35341_pagefiles
16 // CHAPTER 1 // The Science of Psychology
of happiness as something that people know about themselves, then a questionnaire
score might be a good operational de nition of the variable. If we think that people
might not be aware of how happy they are (or are not), then facial expression might
be a better operational de nition. In other words, our de nition of a variable must be
set out clearly before we operationally de ne it.
Because operational de nitions allow researchers to measure variables, they have a
lot of numbers to deal with once they have conducted a study. A key aspect of the
process of testing hypotheses is data analysis . Data refers to all the information (all
those numbers) researchers collect in a study—say, the questionnaire scores or the
behaviors observed. Data analysis means “crunching” those numbers mathematically to
see if they support predictions. In other words, data analysis involves applying mathe-
matical procedures to understand what the numerical information means (Howell, 2013).
Many psychology students are surprised to learn that much of psychologists’ work relies
heavily on sophisticated statistics, numbers that help them describe what the data have
to tell them.
Let’s pause and examine an example that demonstrates the  rst three steps in
the scienti c method. One theory of well-being is self-determination theory
(Ryan, Huta, & Deci, 2008; Ryan & Deci, 2011). This theory states that people are
likely to feel ful lled when their lives meet three important needs: relatedness (warm
relations with others), autonomy (independence), and competence (mastering new
One hypothesis that follows logically from this theory is that people who value money,
material possessions, prestige, and physical appearance (that is, extrinsic rewards) over
the needs of relatedness, autonomy, and competence (intrinsic rewards) should be less
ful lled, less happy, and less well adjusted. In a series of studies entitled “The Dark Side
of the American Dream,” researchers Timothy Kasser and Richard Ryan asked partici-
pants to complete self-report measures of values and of psychological and physical func-
tioning (Kasser & Ryan, 1993, 1996; Kasser & others, 2004). Thus, the operational
de nitions of values and psychological functioning were questionnaire scores. The
researchers found that individuals who value material rewards over intrinsic rewards do
indeed tend to suffer as predicted, and similar  ndings have emerged in nations through-
out the world (Kasser, 2011).
4. DRAWING CONCLUSIONS Based on the results of the data analyses, scien-
tists then draw conclusions from their research. If the results of a study (or a series of
studies) support predictions, then a theory may gain credibility. A theory, however, is
always open to revision. Before a theory is accepted or changed, the scienti c community
must establish that the research can be replicated, or repeated, by other scientists using
different methods. If a particular research  nding is demonstrated again and again across
different researchers and different methods, it is considered reliable —in other words, it
is a dependable result.
5. EVALUATING CONCLUSIONS The nal step in the scienti c method, eval-
uating conclusions, is one that never ends. Researchers submit their work for publication,
and it undergoes rigorous review. Afterward, the published studies are there for all to
see, read, and evaluate continually.
Although the published research literature represents the current state
of scienti c knowledge about various topics and areas, the research com-
munity maintains an active conversation about this knowledge and con-
stantly questions conclusions. Inspired by published studies, a scientist
might come up with a new idea to be tested, one that will eventually change
the thinking on some topic. Steps 3, 4, and 5 in the scienti c method are
thus part of an ongoing process. That is, researchers go back and do more
research, revise their theories, hone their methods, and draw and evaluate their new
Because scientists are
skeptical and critical thinkers,
published studies often lead to
alternative theories and
hypotheses that are
themselves tested.
kin35341_ch01_001-041.indd Page 16 8/19/12 2:24 PM user-f502kin35341_ch01_001-041.indd Page 16 8/19/12 2:24 PM user-f502 /207/MH01822/kin35341_disk1of1/0078035341/kin35341_pagefiles/207/MH01822/kin35341_disk1of1/0078035341/kin35341_pagefiles
Types of Psychological Research // 17
1. Any changeable phenomenon that a sci-
entist studies is called a
A. differential.
B. predictor.
C. variation.
D. variable.
2. The statement “I believe this research
will demonstrate that students who
study in groups will get better grades
than those who study alone” is an ex-
ample of
A. a theory.
B. an observation.
C. a conclusion.
D. a hypothesis.
3. The last step in the scientific method,
and one that never ends, is
A. drawing conclusions.
B. evaluating conclusions.
C. testing through empirical research.
D. running a statistical analysis.
APPLY IT 4. Paul believes that physi-
cally attractive people are selfish. He con-
ducts a study to see if he is right. He goes
up to five people he thinks are good-looking
and asks them for spare change. They all
turn him down. Paul concludes, “Aha! I
knew it all along.” The operational defini-
tion of selfish in Paul’s study is
A. physical attractiveness.
B. whether people gave Paul spare change.
C. whether Paul thought the person was
D. asking for spare change.
BONUS As you practice thinking like a
scientist and learn about research design,
give further thought to Paul’s study. Can
you spot at least four big problems with it?
The ve steps of the scienti c method are re ected differently in three types of research
commonly used in psychology. Descriptive research involves  nding out about the basic
dimensions of some variable (for example, what is the average level of happiness of men
in the United States?). Correlational research is interested in discovering relationships
between variables (for instance, are married men happier than single men?). Exper i men-
tal research concerns establishing causal relationships between variables (if we make
men smile, do women perceive them as more attractive?). Let’s examine each of these
types of research.
Descriptive Research
Just as its name suggests, descriptive research is about describing some
phenomenon—determining its basic dimensions and de ning what this thing
is, how often it occurs, and so on. By itself, descriptive research cannot prove
what causes some phenomenon, but it can reveal important information about
people’s behaviors and attitudes (Salkind, 2012). Descriptive research methods
include observation, surveys and interviews, and case studies.
OBSERVATION Imagine that you are going to conduct a study on how
children who are playing a game resolve con icts that arise during the game.
The data that are of interest to you concern con ict resolution. As a  rst step,
you might go to a playground and simply observe what the children do—how
often you see con ict resolution occur and how it unfolds. You would likely
keep careful notes of what you observe.
This type of scienti c observation requires an important set of skills (Smith
& Davis, 2010). Unless you are a trained observer and practice your skills
regularly, you might not know what to look for, you might not remember what
you saw, you might not realize that what you are looking for is changing from
one moment to the next, and you might not communicate your observations
effectively. Furthermore, it might be important to have one or more others do
the observations as well, to develop a sense of how accurate your observations
are. For observations to be effective, they must be systematic. You must know
Types of Psychological Research
Public opinion polls are a
type of descriptive research.
Used by permission of CartoonStock, www.
kin35341_ch01_001-041.indd Page 17 8/1/12 4:53 PM user-f502kin35341_ch01_001-041.indd Page 17 8/1/12 4:53 PM user-f502 /207/MH01822/kin35341_disk1of1/0078035341/kin35341_pagefiles/207/MH01822/kin35341_disk1of1/0078035341/kin35341_pagefiles
18 // CHAPTER 1 // The Science of Psychology
whom you are observing, when and where you will observe, and how you will make the
observations. Also, you need to know in advance in what form you will document them:
in writing, by sound recording, or by video.
SURVEYS AND INTERVIEWS Sometimes the best and quickest way to get
information about people is to ask them for it. One technique is to interview them
directly. A related method that is especially useful when information from many peo-
ple is needed is the survey, or questionnaire. A survey presents a standard set of ques-
tions, or items, to obtain people’s self-reported attitudes or beliefs about a particular
Although surveys can be a straightforward way to measure psychological variables,
constructing them requires care (Stangor, 2011). For example, surveys can measure only
what people think about themselves. Thus, if we are interested in studying a variable
that we think is unconscious, like a psychodynamic drive, we cannot use a survey. Fur-
thermore, people do not always know the truth about themselves. If you were answering
a survey that asked, “Are you a generous person?” how might your answer compare to
that of a friend who is asked to make that same rating about you? One particular prob-
lem with surveys and interviews is the tendency of participants to answer questions in a
way that will make them look good rather than in a way that communicates what they
truly think or feel (Peterson & others, 2011). Another challenge in survey construction
is that when questionnaires are used to operationally de ne variables, it is crucial that
the items precisely probe the speci c topic of interest and not some other characteristic.
The language used in surveys therefore must be clear and understandable if the responses
are to re ect the participants’ actual feelings.
Surveys and interviews can cover a wide range of topics, from religious beliefs to
sexual habits to attitudes about gun control. Some survey and interview questions are
unstructured and open-ended, such as “How ful lling would you say your marriage
is?” Such questions allow for unique responses from each person surveyed. Other
survey and interview questions are more structured and ask about quite speci c things.
For example, a structured question might ask, “How many times have you talked with
your partner about a personal problem in the past month: 0, 1–2, 3–5, 6–10, 11–30,
every day?”
CASE STUDIES A case study , or case history , is an in-
depth look at a single individual. Case studies are performed
mainly by clinical psychologists when, for either practical or
ethical reasons, the unique aspects of an individual’s life cannot
be duplicated and tested in other individuals. A case study pro-
vides information about one person’s goals, hopes, fantasies,
fears, traumatic experiences, family relationships, health, or any-
thing else that helps the psychologist understand the person’s
mind and behavior. Case studies can also involve in-depth explo-
rations of particular families or social groups.
An example of a case study is the analysis of India’s spiritual
leader Mahatma Gandhi (1869–1948) by psychodynamic theorist
Erik Erikson (1969). Erikson studied Gandhi’s life in great depth
to discover insights into how his positive spiritual identity devel-
oped, especially during his youth. In piecing together Gandhi’s
identity development, Erikson described the contributions of cul-
ture, history, family, and various other factors that might affect
the way other people form an identity.
Case histories provide dramatic, detailed portrayals of peo-
ple’s lives, but researchers must be cautious about applying
what they learn from one person’s life to other people. The
subject of a case study has a unique genetic makeup and per-
sonal history that no one else shares. Case studies nevertheless
case study
Also called a
case history, an
in-depth look at a
single individual.
Mahatma Gandhi was the spiritual leader of India in
the middle of the twentieth century. Erik Erikson
conducted an extensive case study of his life to
determine what contributed to his identity
kin35341_ch01_001-041.indd Page 18 8/1/12 4:53 PM user-f502kin35341_ch01_001-041.indd Page 18 8/1/12 4:53 PM user-f502 /207/MH01822/kin35341_disk1of1/0078035341/kin35341_pagefiles/207/MH01822/kin35341_disk1of1/0078035341/kin35341_pagefiles
Types of Psychological Research // 19
can be very valuable at the  rst step of the scienti c method, in that they often pro-
vide vivid observations that can then be tested in a variety of ways in psychological
THE VALUE OF DESCRIPTIVE RESEARCH Descriptive research allows
researchers to get a sense of something but cannot answer questions about how and why
things are the way they are. Such research can nonetheless be intriguing, such as descrip-
tive research on the experience of happiness in different cultures. Before reading about
that research, complete the measure below. Using the 7-point scale below, indicate your
agreement with each item that follows.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Strongly Disagree Slightly Neither Agree Slightly Agree Strongly
Disagree Disagree Nor Disagree Agree Agree
1. In most ways my life is close to my ideal.
2. The conditions of my life are excellent.
3. I am satis ed with my life.
4. So far I have gotten the important things I want in life.
5. If I could live my life over, I would change almost nothing.
You have just completed the Satisfaction with Life Scale (or SWLS; Diener & others,
1985), one operational de nition of happiness. To  nd out your score, add up your rat-
ings and divide by 5. This average rating could be considered your level of general
happiness. A broad range of studies in many different countries have used this scale and
others like it to measure happiness levels. Based on such research, Ed and Carol Diener
(1996) concluded that most people are quite happy because they score above the mid-
point, 3.5, on the scale you just completed. However, research on happiness in various
cultures has generally centered on relatively industrialized countries. What about nonin-
dustrialized cultures?
One study examined levels of happiness in groups of people who have not generally
been included in psychological studies (Biswas-Diener, Vitterso, & Diener, 2005). The
research included three groups: the Inuits of Greenland, the Masai of southern Kenya,
and American Old Order Amish. All three groups completed measures essentially the
same as the one you just did.
The Inuit tribe studied—the Inughuits —live at 79 degrees latitude (very far north),
in the harshest climate inhabited by a traditional human society. The landscape consists
of rocks, glaciers, and the sea. Farming is impossible. The Inughuits have some mod-
ern conveniences, but they generally adhere to a traditional hunting culture. It is not
uncommon to  nd an Inughuit hunter carving a seal or caribou on the kitchen  oor
while children watch TV in the next room. Most of us might feel a little blue in the
winter months when gloomy weather stretches on day after day. For the Inughuits,
however, the sun never rises throughout the winter months, and in the summer, it never
sets. How happy could an individual be in such a dif cult setting? Pretty happy, it
turns out, as the Inughuits averaged a 5.0 on the Satisfaction with Life Scale.
The Masai are an indigenous (native) African nomadic group who live in vil-
lages of about 20 people, with little exposure to the West. The Masai are  erce
warriors, and their culture has many traditional ceremonies built around a
boy’s passage from childhood to manhood. Boys are circumcised between
the ages of 15 and 22, and they are forbidden from moving or making a
sound during the procedure. Girls also experience circumcision as they
enter puberty, a controversial rite that involves the removal of the clitoris
and that makes childbirth extremely dif cult. The Masai practice child
marriage and polygamy. Masai women have very little power and are gener-
ally expected to do most of the work. How happy could an individual be in this
context? Masai men and women who completed the measure orally in their native tongue,
Notice that these first
two studies involve examining two
different cultures, while the last
one focuses on a culture within a
culture. These studies exemplify
the sociocultural approach.
kin35341_ch01_001-041.indd Page 19 8/1/12 4:53 PM user-f502kin35341_ch01_001-041.indd Page 19 8/1/12 4:53 PM user-f502 /207/MH01822/kin35341_disk1of1/0078035341/kin35341_pagefiles/207/MH01822/kin35341_disk1of1/0078035341/kin35341_pagefiles
20 // CHAPTER 1 // The Science of Psychology
Maa, averaged a 5.4 on the life satisfaction scale (Biswas-Diener, Vitterso, & Diener,
Finally, the Old Order Amish of the midwestern and northeastern United States belong
to a strict religious sect that explicitly rejects modern aspects of life.
The Amish separate
themselves from mainstream society and travel by horse and buggy. The women wear
bonnets, and the men sport beards, dark clothes, and dark brimmed hats. The Amish
farm without modern machinery and dedicate their lives to simplicity—without
radios, TVs, CDs, DVDs, iPods, smartphones, washing machines, and cars. Still,
the Amish are relatively happy, averaging 4.4 on the 7-point happiness scale
(Biswas-Diener, Vitterso, & Diener, 2005).
Like a host of other studies in industrialized nations, these results indicate
that most individuals are pretty happy. Such descriptive  ndings provide
researchers on well-being a foundation for further examining the processes that
lead to feelings of happiness in different cultural settings. If a researcher wanted
to examine, for example, what predicts happiness within these different groups,
he or she would use a correlational design.
Correlational Research
We have seen that descriptive research tells us about the basic dimensions of a vari-
able. In contrast, correlational research tells us about the relationships between vari-
ables, and its purpose is to examine whether and how two variables change together .
That is, correlational research looks at a co-relationship. For instance, if one of
the variables increases, what happens to the other one? When two variables
change together, we can predict one from the other, and we say that the variables are
Correlational research is so named because of the statistical technique, correlation,
that is typically used to analyze this type of data. The key feature of a correlational study
is that the variables of interest are measured or observed to see how they relate. If we
wanted to know whether shy people are happy, we might give the same people two
questionnaires, one that measures shyness and another that measures happiness. For each
person we would have two scores, and we would then see whether shyness and happiness
relate to each other in a systematic way.
The degree of relationship between two variables is expressed as a numerical value
called a correlational coef cient, which is most commonly represented by the letter r .
The correlation coef cient is a statistic that tells us two things about the relationship
between two variables—its strength and its direction. The value of a correlation always
falls between 1.00 and 1.00. The number or magnitude of the correlation tells us
about the strength of the relationship. The closer the number is to 1.00, the stronger
the relationship. The sign ( or ) tells us about the direction of the relationship between
the variables. A positive sign means that as one variable increases, the other also increases.
A negative sign means that as one variable increases, the other decreases. A zero cor-
relation means that there is no systematic relationship between the variables. Examples
of scatter plots (a type of graph that plots scores on the two variables) showing positive
and negative correlations appear in Figure 1.4. Note that every dot in this  gure repre-
sents both scores for one person.
CORRELATION IS NOT CAUSATION Look at the terms in bold type in the
following news headlines:
Researchers Link Coffee Consumption to Happiness in Women
Scientists Find Connection Between Ear Hair and Heart Attacks
Psychologists Discover Relationship Between Marital Status and Health
correlational research
Research that examines
the relationships between
variables, whose purpose
is to examine whether and
how two variables change
How does your
score compare with the score
of the Inughuits, the Masai,
and the Old Order Amish? Is
the Satisfaction with
Life Scale a good measure
of happiness? Why or
why not?
kin35341_ch01_001-041.indd Page 20 8/1/12 4:53 PM user-f502kin35341_ch01_001-041.indd Page 20 8/1/12 4:53 PM user-f502 /207/MH01822/kin35341_disk1of1/0078035341/kin35341_pagefiles/207/MH01822/kin35341_disk1of1/0078035341/kin35341_pagefiles
Types of Psychological Research // 21
From these headlines a reader might conclude that coffee causes pancreatic cancer, ear
hair causes heart attacks, and so on. The words in bold type are synonymous only with
correlation, however, not with causality. Correl a tion does not equal causation. Remem-
ber, correlation means only that two variables change together. Being able to predict one
event based on the occurrence of another event does not necessarily tell us anything
about the cause of either event (Heiman, 2011; Pagano, 2013). Sometimes some other
variable that has not been measured accounts for the relationship between two others.
Researchers refer to this circumstance as the third variable problem . Third variables
are also known as confounds.
To understand the third variable problem, consider the following example. A researcher
measures two variables: the number of ice cream cones sold in a town and the
number of violent crimes that occur in that town throughout the year. The
researcher  nds that ice cream cone sales and violent crimes are positively
correlated, to the magnitude of .50. This high positive correlation
would indicate that as ice cream sales increase, so does violent crime.
Would it be reasonable for the local paper to run the headline “Ice Cream
Consumption Leads to Violence”? Should concerned citizens gather outside
the local Frosty Freeze to stop the madness? Probably not. Perhaps you have
already thought of the third variable that might explain this correlation—heat. Research
third variable
The circumstance
where a variable
that has not
been measured
accounts for the
between two
other variables.
Third variables
are also known as
FIGURE 1.4 Scatter Plots
Showing Positive and Negative
Correlations A positive correlation is a
relationship in which two factors vary in the
same direction, as shown in the two scatter
plots on the left. A negative correlation is a
relationship in which two factors vary in
opposite directions, as shown in the two
scatter plots on the right. Note that each dot
on these graphs represents one person’s (or
one class’s) score on the two variables of
interest. For each graph, consider these
questions. > How might one of these
variables cause the other? Can you imagine
a way that the causal direction could be
reversed? > What is a possible third variable
that might account for these relationships?
> Identify two variables that you think are
positively correlated and two that are
negatively correlated. > What would the
graphs look like if the two variables were
not systematically related?
Hours of studying
Few Many
The more you study,
the higher your
test grade.
Low High
Length of lecture
Short Long
The longer the
lecture, the more
you yawn.
Few Many
Number of yawns
Test grade
Number of parties
Few Many
The more you
party, the lower
your test grade.
Low High
Test grade
Length of lecture
Short Long
The longer the
lecture, the
lower your
Level of attentiveness
Positive Correlations Negative Correlations
Crime, then, is probably
also “linked” to air conditioning
sales and repair profits, as
well as swimsuit sales.
kin35341_ch01_001-041.indd Page 21 8/1/12 4:53 PM user-f502kin35341_ch01_001-041.indd Page 21 8/1/12 4:53 PM user-f502 /207/MH01822/kin35341_disk1of1/0078035341/kin35341_pagefiles/207/MH01822/kin35341_disk1of1/0078035341/kin35341_pagefiles
22 // CHAPTER 1 // The Science of Psychology
has shown that crime goes up when the temperature rises (Anderson & others, 2000;
Bushman, Wang, & Anderson, 2005), and, as any ice cream shop manager will tell
you, ice cream sales are higher when it is warm outside. Third variables are also
called confounds.
Given the potential problems with third variables, why do researchers
conduct correlational studies? There are several very good reasons. One is
that some important questions can be investigated only by using a correla-
tional design. Such questions may involve variables that can only be mea-
sured or observed, such as biological sex, personality traits, genetic factors,
and ethnic background. Another reason researchers conduct correlational studies is
that sometimes the variables of interest are real-world events that in uence people’s
lives, such as the effects of a natural disaster like the earthquake that caused a tsunami
in Japan in 2011. Correlational research is also valuable in cases where it would not
be ethical to do the research in any other way. For example, it would be unethical for
an experimenter to direct expectant mothers to smoke varying numbers of cigarettes in
order to see how cigarette smoke affects birth weight and fetal activity. Such studies
are called quasi-experimental (see p. 25).
Although we have focused on relationships between just two variables, researchers
often measure many variables in their studies. This way, they can examine whether a
relationship between two variables is explained by a third variable (or a fourth or  fth
variable). An interesting research question that has been addressed in this fashion is, do
happy people live longer? In one study, 2000 Mexican Americans aged 65 and older
were interviewed twice over the course of two years (Ostir & others, 2000). In the  rst
assessment, participants completed measures of happiness but also reported about poten-
tial third variables such as diet, physical health, smoking, marital status, and distress.
Two years later, the researchers contacted the participants again to see who was still
alive. Even with these many potential third variables taken into account, happiness pre-
dicted who was still living two years later.
Correlational studies are useful, too, when researchers are interested in everyday expe-
rience. For example, some correlational researchers use the experience sampling method
(ESM) to study people in their natural settings. This approach involves having people
report on their daily experiences in a diary a few times a day or to complete measures
of their mood and behavior whenever they are beeped by an electronic organizer or
LONGITUDINAL DESIGNS One way that correlational researchers can deal with
the issue of causation is to employ a special kind of systematic observation called a
longitudinal design . Longitudinal research involves observing and measuring the same
variables periodically over time. Longitudinal research can suggest potential causal rela-
tionships because if one variable is thought to cause changes in another, it should at least
come before that variable in time.
One intriguing longitudinal study is the Nun Study, conducted by David Snowdon and
his colleagues (Mortimer, Snowdon, & Markesbery, 2009; Santacruz & others, 2011;
Snowdon, 2003; Tyas & others, 2007). The study began in 1986 and has followed a
sample of 678 School Sisters of Notre Dame ever since. The nuns ranged in age from
75 to 103 when the study began. These women complete a variety of psychological and
physical measures annually. This sample is unique in many respects. However, some
characteristics render the participants an excellent group for correlational research. For
one thing, many potential extraneous third variables are relatively identical for all the
women in the group. Their gender, living conditions, diet, activity levels, marital status,
and religious participation are essentially held constant, providing little chance that dif-
ferences in these variables can explain results.
Researchers recently examined the relationship between happiness and longevity using
this rich dataset. All of the nuns had been asked to write a spiritual autobiography when
they entered the convent (for some, as many as 80 years before). Deborah Danner and
her colleagues (2001) were given access to these documents and used them as indicators
longitudinal design
A special kind of systematic
observation, used by corre-
lational researchers, that
involves obtaining measures
of the variables of interest in
multiple waves over time.
kin35341_ch01_001-041.indd Page 22 8/1/12 4:53 PM user-f502kin35341_ch01_001-041.indd Page 22 8/1/12 4:53 PM user-f502 /207/MH01822/kin35341_disk1of1/0078035341/kin35341_pagefiles/207/MH01822/kin35341_disk1of1/0078035341/kin35341_pagefiles
Types of Psychological Research // 23
of happiness earlier in life by counting the number of positive emotions expressed in the
autobiographies (note that here we have yet another operational de nition of happiness).
Higher levels of positive emotion expressed in autobiographies written at an average age
of 22 were associated with a 2.5-fold difference in risk of mortality when the nuns
were in their 80s and 90s. That is, women who included positive emotion in
their autobiographies when they were in their early 20s were two-and-a-half
times more likely to survive some 60 years later.
Longitudinal designs provide ways by which correlational researchers may
attempt to demonstrate causal relations among variables. Still, it is important
to be aware that even in longitudinal studies, causal relationships are not
completely clear. For example, the nuns who wrote happier autobiographies
may have had happier childhood experiences that might be in uencing their
longevity, or a particular genetic factor might explain both their happiness and
their survival. As you read about numerous correlational research studies
throughout this book, do so critically, and with some skepticism, and consider
that even the brightest scientist may not have thought of all of the potential
third variables that might have explained his or her results. Keep in mind how
easy it is to assume causality when two events or characteristics are merely
correlated. Think about those innocent ice cream cones and critically evaluate
conclusions that may be drawn from simple observation.
Experimental Research
To determine whether a causal relationship exists between variables, researchers must
use experimental methods (Myers & Hansen, 2012). An experiment is a carefully regu-
lated procedure in which the researcher manipulates one or more variables that are
believed to in uence some other variable. Imagine that a researcher notices that people
who listen to classical music seem to be of above-average intelligence. A correlational
study on this question would not tell us if listening to classical music causes increases
in intelligence. In order to demonstrate causation, the researcher would manipulate
whether or not people listen to classical music. He or she might create two groups: one
that listens to classical music and one that listens to pop music. To test for differences
in intelligence, the researcher would then measure intelligence.
If that manipulation led to differences between the two groups on intelligence, we
could say that the manipulated variable caused those differences. In other words, the
experiment has demonstrated cause and effect. This notion that experiments can dem-
onstrate causation is based on the idea that if participants are randomly assigned to
groups, the only systematic difference between them must be the manipulated vari-
able. Random assignment means that researchers assign participants to groups by
chance. This technique reduces the likelihood that the experiment’s results will be
due to any preexisting differences between groups (Eimes, Kantowitz, & Roediger,
To get a sense of what experimental studies, as compared to correlational studies, can
tell us, consider the following example. Psychologists have long assumed that experienc-
ing one’s life as meaningful is an important aspect of psychological well-being (Frankl,
1963/1984; Steger & Frazier, 2005). Because surveys that measure meaning in life and
well-being correlate positively (that is, the more meaningful your life, the happier you
are), the assumption has been that experiencing meaning in life causes greater happiness.
Because the studies involved in exploring this relationship have been correlational, how-
ever, the causal pathway is unknown. Meaning in life may lead people to be happier, but
the reverse might also be true: Happiness might make people feel that their lives are
more meaningful.
To address this issue, Laura King and her colleagues (2006; King & Hicks, 2012)
conducted a series of laboratory experiments. The researchers had some people listen to
A carefully regulated proce-
dure in which the researcher
manipulates one or more
variables that are believed
to infl uence some other
assignment of
participants to
groups by chance,
to reduce the
likelihood that an
experiment’s re-
sults will be due
to preexisting dif-
ferences between
Pull out some old “sent messages”
in your e-mail from as far back as
you can fi nd. Count up your positive
emotion words and negative emotion
words. How do the themes in those
messages refl ect your life at that
time and today? Does looking at your
old e-mails change the way you
might think about the results of the
Nun Study? Explain.
kin35341_ch01_001-041.indd Page 23 8/1/12 4:53 PM user-f502kin35341_ch01_001-041.indd Page 23 8/1/12 4:53 PM user-f502 /207/MH01822/kin35341_disk1of1/0078035341/kin35341_pagefiles/207/MH01822/kin35341_disk1of1/0078035341/kin35341_pagefiles
24 // CHAPTER 1 // The Science of Psychology
happy music and other participants listen to neutral music. Participants who
listened to happy music rated their lives as more meaningful than did indi-
viduals who listened to neutral music. Note that participants were ran-
domly assigned to one of two conditions, happy music or neutral music,
and then rated their meaning in life using a questionnaire. In this case
happiness was operationally de ned by the type of music participants
listened to, and meaning in life was operationally de ned by ratings on a
questionnaire. Because participants were randomly assigned to conditions,
we can assume that the only systematic difference between the two groups
was the type of music they heard. As a result, we can say that the
happy music caused people to rate their lives as more meaningful.
Experiments have two types of variables: independent and depen-
dent. An independent variable is a manipulated experimental factor. The independent
variable is the variable that the experimenter changes to see what its effects are; it is
a potential cause. Any experiment may include several independent variables or
factors that are manipulated to determine their effect on some outcome. In the
study of positive mood and meaning in life, the independent variable is mood
(positive versus neutral), operationally de ned by the type of music partici-
pants listened to.
Sometimes the independent variable is the social context in which a person
nds himself or herself. Social psychologists often manipulate the social con-
text with the help of a confederate, a person who is given a role to play in a
study so that the social context can be manipulated. For example, if a researcher
is interested in reactions to being treated rudely, he or she might have a confed-
erate treat participants rudely (or not).
A dependent variable is the outcome—the factor that can change in an exper-
iment in response to changes in the independent variable. As researchers manipulate
the independent variable, they measure the dependent variable for any resulting effect.
In the study of mood and meaning in life, meaning in life was the dependent variable.
EXPERIMENTAL AND CONTROL GROUPS Experiments can involve one or
more experimental groups and one or more control groups. In an experiment, the
researcher manipulates the independent variable to create these groups. An experimental
group consists of the participants in an experiment who receive the treatment that is of
interest to the researcher, or a particular drug under study that is, the participants who
are exposed to the change that the independent variable represents. A control group in
an experiment is as much like the experimental group as possible and is treated in every
way like the experimental group except for that change. The control group provides a
comparison against which the researcher can test the effects of the independent variable.
In the study of meaning in life above, participants who listened to happy music were
the experimental group, and those who heard neutral music were the control group.
Within-Participant Designs One way to ensure that a control group and
an experimental group are as similar as possible is to use a within-participant
design, in which the participants serve as their own control group. In such a
design, rather than relying on random assignment to produce equivalent
groups, a researcher has the same group of participants experience the various
conditions in the study. Let’s say that a researcher predicts that the presence
of other people (the independent variable) decreases math performance (the
dependent variable). She might have participants complete math problems  rst
while alone and then with others, and compare performance in the two condi-
tions to test her prediction. The advantages to a within-participant design include
requiring only half the number of participants and knowing that the groups are the
very same people in each condition. The disadvantages include concerns about
A manipulated
factor, the
variable that the
changes to see
what its effects
A person who is
given a role to
play in a study so
that the social
context can be
The outcome—
the factor that
can change in
an experiment
in response to
changes in the
The participants
in an experiment
who receive the
drug or other
treatment under
study—that is,
those who are
exposed to the
change that the
independent vari-
able represents.
control group
The participants
in an experiment
who are as much
like the experi-
mental group as
possible and who
are treated in
every way like
the experimental
group except for
a manipulated
factor, the inde-
pendent variable.
Independent variable
and dependent variable are two
of the
most important
in psychological
research. You should
their meanings now
Remember that the
independent variable is the
cause, and the dependent
variable is the effect.
Coming up with a good
control group can be a challenge.
Say you want to do a study on
the influence of smiling on social
behaviors. Your experimental
group will interact with a
confederate who smiles a lot
during the experiment. What will
you have happen in your control
group? Will the confederate keep
a blank expression? Frown?
Smile just a little?
Independent and
Dependent Variables
kin35341_ch01_001-041.indd Page 24 8/1/12 4:54 PM user-f502kin35341_ch01_001-041.indd Page 24 8/1/12 4:54 PM user-f502 /207/MH01822/kin35341_disk1of1/0078035341/kin35341_pagefiles/207/MH01822/kin35341_disk1of1/0078035341/kin35341_pagefiles
Types of Psychological Research // 25
whether the two math tests are really equivalent and how the order of the con-
ditions might in uence their effects on performance.
Quasi-Experimental Designs Another approach to experimental
research is to use a quasi-experimental design . As the pre x quasi- (“as
if”) suggests, this type of design is similar to an experiment, but it is not
quite the same thing. The key difference is that a quasi-experimental design
does not include random assignment of participants to a condition, because
such assignment is either impossible or unethical (Reichardt, 2009).
Quasi-experimental designs might be used for studies that examine the differences
between groups of people who have had different experiences say, soldiers who have
seen combat versus those who have not, or children whose school was destroyed by a
tornado versus those in a neighboring town whose school was not affected. In a quasi-
experimental design, a researcher examines participants in varying groups, but their
assignment to groups is not determined by random assignment.
For example, a researcher interested in the in uence of using online learn-
ing tools on performance in introductory psychology classes might compare
students from two different sections of a class—one that uses online tools
and one that does not. Of course, students typically choose what section
of a course they take, so the experimenter cannot randomly assign them
to sections. Examining differences between the groups might provide
information about the merits of online learning tools. However, there
might be confounds (for instance, whether students are morning people or not)
that account for differences between the groups. Although quasi-experimental
designs are common, it is important to keep in mind that they do not allow for
the strong causal conclusions that can be drawn from experiments.
to the soundness of the conclusions that a researcher draws from an experiment. Two
broad types of validity matter to experimental designs. The  rst is external validity , which
refers to the degree to which an experimental design really re ects the real-world issues
it is supposed to address. That is, external validity is concerned with the question, do the
experimental methods and the results generalize do they apply to the real world?
Imagine, for example, that a researcher is interested in the in uence of stress (the
independent variable) on creative problem solving (the dependent variable). He or she
randomly assigns individuals to be blasted with loud noises at random times during the
session (the high-stress or experimental group) or to complete the task in relative quiet
(the control group). As the task, the researcher gives all participants a chance to be
creative by asking them to list all of the uses they can think of for a cardboard box.
Counting up the number of uses that people list, the researcher discovers
that those in the high-stress group generated fewer uses of the box. This
nding might indicate that stress reduces creativity. In considering the
external validity of this study, however, we might ask some questions:
How similar are the blasts of loud, random noises to the stresses indi-
viduals experience every day? Is listing uses for a cardboard box really an
indicator of creativity? We are asking, in other words, if these operational de nitions
do a good job of re ecting the real-world processes they are supposed to represent.
The second type of validity is internal validity , which refers to the degree to which
changes in the dependent variable are due to the manipulation of the independent vari-
able. In the case of internal validity, we want to know whether the experimental methods
are free from biases and logical errors that may render the results suspect. Although
experimental research is a powerful tool, it requires safeguards (Leary, 2012). Expecta-
tions and biases can, and sometimes do, tarnish results (Ray, 2012; Rosnow & Rosenthal,
2008), as we next consider.
Experimenter Bias Experimenters may subtly (and often unknowingly) in uence their
research participants. Experimenter bias occurs when the experimenter’s expectations
The soundness of the con-
clusions that a researcher
draws from an experiment.
external validity
The degree to
which an experi-
mental design
actually refl ects
the real-world
issues it is
supposed to
internal validity
The degree to
which changes in
the dependent
variable are due
to the manipula-
tion of the inde-
pendent variable.
experimenter bias
The infl uence of the experi-
menter’s expectations on
the outcome of research.
When the participants who
are in the experimental and control
groups are different people, the
design is called a
participant design.
The late Donald Campbell, an
eminent psychologist, referred
to quasi-experimental designs as
“queasy experimental designs”
because of the way they often make
hard-core experimentalists feel.
Quasi-experimental designs
tend to be high on external
kin35341_ch01_001-041.indd Page 25 8/1/12 4:54 PM user-f502kin35341_ch01_001-041.indd Page 25 8/1/12 4:54 PM user-f502 /207/MH01822/kin35341_disk1of1/0078035341/kin35341_pagefiles/207/MH01822/kin35341_disk1of1/0078035341/kin35341_pagefiles
26 // CHAPTER 1 // The Science of Psychology
in uence the outcome of the research. No one
designs an experiment without wanting meaning-
ful results. Consequently, experimenters can some-
times subtly communicate to participants what
they want the participants to do. Demand char-
acteristics are any aspects of a study that com-
municate to the participants how the experimenter
wants them to behave. The in uence of experi-
menter expectations can be very dif cult to avoid.
In a classic study, Robert Rosenthal (1966)
turned college students into experimenters. He
randomly assigned the participants rats from the
same litter. Half of the students were told that
their rats were “maze bright,” whereas the other
half were told that their rats were “maze dull.
The students then conducted experiments to test
their rats’ ability to navigate mazes. The results
were stunning. The so-called maze-bright rats
were more successful than the maze-dull rats at running the mazes. The only explanation
for the results is that the college students’ expectations affected the rats’ performance.
Often the participants in psychological studies are not rats but people. Imagine that
you are an experimenter and you know that a participant is going to be exposed to dis-
gusting pictures in a study. Is it possible that you might treat the person differently than
you would if you were about to show him photos of cute kittens? The reason experi-
menter bias is important is that it introduces systematic differences between the experi-
mental and control groups, so that we cannot know if those who looked at disgusting
pictures were more, say, upset because of the pictures or because of different treatment
by the experimenter. Like third variables in correlational research, these systematic biases
are called confounds . In experimental research, confounds are factors that “ride along”
with the experimental manipulation, systematically and undesirably in uencing the
dependent variable. Experimenter bias, demand characteristics, and confounds may all
lead to differences between groups on the dependent variable that bias results.
Research Participant Bias and the Placebo Effect Like the experiment-
ers, research participants may have expectations about what they are supposed to
do and how they should behave, and these expectations may affect the results of
experiments (Bonds-Raache & Raache, 2012). Research participant bias occurs
when the behavior of research participants during the experiment is influenced by
how they think they are supposed to behave or their expectations about what is
happening to them.
One example of the power of participant expectations is the placebo effect. The
placebo effect occurs when participants’ expectations, rather than the experimental treat-
ment, produce an outcome. Participants in a drug study might be assigned to an experi-
mental group that receives a pill containing an actual painkiller or to a control group
that receives a placebo pill. A placebo is a harmless substance that has no physiological
effect. This placebo is given to participants in a control group so that they are treated
identically to the experimental group except for the active agent—in this case, the pain-
killer. Giving individuals in the control group a placebo pill allows researchers to deter-
mine whether changes in the experimental group are due to the active drug agent and
not simply to participants’ expectations.
Another way to ensure that neither the experimenter’s nor the participants’ expecta-
tions affect the outcome is to design a double-blind experiment . In this design, neither
the experimenter administering the treatment nor the participants are aware of which
participants are in the experimental group and which are in the control group until the
results are calculated. This setup ensures that the experimenter cannot, for example,
make subtle gestures signaling who is receiving a drug and who is not. A double-blind
Any aspects of a
study that com-
municate to the
participants how
the experimenter
wants them to
research participant bias
In an experiment, the
infl uence of participants’
expectations, and of their
thoughts about how they
should behave, on their
placebo effect
The situation where partici-
pants’ expectations, rather
than the experimental treat-
ment, produce an experi-
mental outcome.
In a drug study,
a harmless sub-
stance that has
no physiological
effect, given to
participants in
a control group
so that they are
treated identi-
cally to the
group except for
the active agent.
double-blind experiment
An experimental design in
which neither the experi-
menter nor the participants
are aware of which partici-
pants are in the experimen-
tal group and which are in
the control group until the
results are calculated.
“This GPS eliminates all the guesswork”
Used by permission of CartoonStock,
kin35341_ch01_001-041.indd Page 26 8/1/12 4:54 PM user-f502kin35341_ch01_001-041.indd Page 26 8/1/12 4:54 PM user-f502 /207/MH01822/kin35341_disk1of1/0078035341/kin35341_pagefiles/207/MH01822/kin35341_disk1of1/0078035341/kin35341_pagefiles
Types of Psychological Research // 27
study allows researchers to identify the speci c effects of the independent
variable from the possible effects of the experimenter’s and the partici-
pants’ expectations about it.
Applications of the Three Types
of Research
All three types of research that we have considered descriptive, correlational, and
experimental can be used to address the same research topic (Figure 1.5). For instance,
researchers have been interested in examining the role of intensely positive experiences
in human functioning. Abraham Maslow (1971) believed that the healthiest, happiest
people in the world were capable of having intense moments of awe, and he used the
descriptive case study approach to examine the role of such “peak experiences” in the
lives of individuals who seemed to exemplify the best in human life. Through correla-
tional research, Dan McAdams (2001) probed individuals’ descriptions of the most
intensely positive experiences of their lives. He found that people who were motivated
toward warm interpersonal experiences tended to mention such experiences as the best
memories of their lives. Experimental researchers have also investigated this question.
In their work, people who were randomly assigned to write about their most intensely
positive experiences for a few minutes each day for two or three days experienced
enhanced positive mood as well as fewer physical illnesses two months later, compared
to individuals in control groups who wrote about unemotional topics (Burton & King,
2004, 2008). Experimental and correlational methods are often combined as psycholo-
gists grapple with the intriguing question of the role of culture in psychological pro-
cesses, as we explore in the Intersection.
Volunteering for a
double-blind drug study might
seem risky. Would you do it? How
might differences in willingness to
volunteer to participate in this
research influence its
external validity?
Descriptive Research
The findings would lay the groundwork for future
research by establishing the types of questions that
ought to be addressed. This work would not tell us,
however, about the processes involved or provide
generalizable conclusions.
How much time are
individuals spending
each day on Facebook
and similar sites?
How many people use
different kinds of social
How do people
describe their use of
social media? Are they
Do people view the
social media they
use positively or
Case studies
Does the social media
page of a particular
person (for instance,
someone who has
committed suicide)
reveal important
information about the
To determine the basic dimensions of a phenomenon.
Correlational Research
This research would
give us information
about how variables
change together.
However, it would not
allow us to make
causal conclusions.
What is the relation-
ship between
the number of hours
spent on social media
and face-to-face
How does personal
page content relate
to personality
To determine how
variables change
Experimental Research
This research would
permit causal
conclusions. The
potential artificiality of
the manipulations
might raise concerns
about external validity.
How does going “cold
turkey” on social
media influence stress
If we randomly assign
a smiling picture to a
personal page, does it
produce more friend
requests than the
identical page with a
frowning picture?
To determine whether
a causal relationship
exists between two
FIGURE 1.5 Psychology’s Research Methods Applied to Studying Social Media Use Psychologists can apply different methods to
study the same phenomenon. The popularity of social media has opened up a host of new research questions for psychologists.
kin35341_ch01_001-041.indd Page 27 8/1/12 4:54 PM user-f502kin35341_ch01_001-041.indd Page 27 8/1/12 4:54 PM user-f502 /207/MH01822/kin35341_disk1of1/0078035341/kin35341_pagefiles/207/MH01822/kin35341_disk1of1/0078035341/kin35341_pagefiles
28 // CHAPTER 1 // The Science of Psychology
he in uence of culture—the shared meanings that char-
acterize a particular social group—on psychological expe-
rience has long fascinated psychologists. Researchers
have distinguished between individualistic and collectivis-
tic cultures (Matsumoto & Juang, 2013; Triandis, 2007). Individu-
alistic cultures (such as those of the United States and western
European nations) emphasize the uniqueness of each individual
and his or her thoughts, feelings, and choices. In contrast, collec-
tivistic cultures (such as those in East Asia) emphasize the social
group and the roles the individual plays in that larger group.
Cultural psychologists believe that these differences in uence
people’s sense of self. Individualists experience the self as inde-
pendent, separate from his or her so-
cial group. Collectivists experience
the self as interdependent, embedded
in a social context. These differences
have been linked to different re-
sponses to the experience of
Imagine that you are in a psycho-
logical study in which you are asked
to solve a number of puzzles. Some
of the puzzles are easy, and you com-
plete them with no problem. The other
puzzles are dif cult, and you cannot
gure them out. Then, you are left
alone with the puzzles, and the re-
searchers inform you that if you would
like, you can keep working on the
puzzles while they prepare the rest of
the study materials. Which puzzles
will you be more likely to choose?
If you are like most individualists,
you will gravitate toward the easy
puzzles, choosing to work on what
you know you are already good at. However, if you are like most
collectivists, you will pick up the dif cult puzzles and keep work-
ing on those that you have not yet solved (Heine, 2005; Heine
& Hamamura, 2007), a pattern that has been shown in Asian
cultures (Falk & others, 2009; Heine & Hamamura, 2007), in
Chile (Heine & Raineri, 2009), and among Mexican Americans
(Tropp & Wright, 2003) and Native Americans (Fryberg &
Markus, 2003).
Culture is a correlational variable, not a causal one. We cannot
say that culture caused differences we observe in different cultures.
Psychologists have sought to identify the processes that led to these
cultural differences. Unlike culture, these processes can be manipu-
lated, and their causal role in cultural differences can be tested.
For example, Toshie Imada and Phoebe Ellsworth (2011) pro-
posed that cultural differences in responses to success are due
to the different ways that individualists and collectivists explain or
appraise their successes. The researchers predicted that when
appraising the reasons for their success, individualists would fo-
cus on their own personal qualities and abilities (“I did well be-
cause I am smart”), while collectivists would more likely point to
situational factors—those that re ect a given situation (“I did well
because the test was easy”). A study comparing U.S. and Japa-
nese students supported this prediction and showed that after a
successful experience, the U.S. stu-
dents felt proud while the Japanese
students felt lucky.
Imada and Ellsworth took this
question further. They conducted an
experiment in which students from
both countries read scenarios in
which the causes of success were ei-
ther personal or situational (the inde-
pendent variable). Students in both
countries were randomly assigned to
read scenarios in which success was
caused by personal attributes or by
situational factors, and then they
rated how lucky and how proud they
would feel about the success (the de-
pendent variable). Results showed
that when the causes of success
were manipulated, the effect of cul-
ture on reactions to success was
greatly diminished. When personal at-
tributes caused success, both groups
felt more proud, and when situational
factors led to success, both groups felt luckier.
Research comparing members of different cultures provides
interesting information about how cultures differ. The Imada and
Ellsworth research shows that when psychologists employ exper-
imental methods within different cultures, they can probe why
those differences exist. Such stud-
ies allow psychologists to shed light
on the ways culture in uences our
emotional lives and to identify the
common processes that underlie
cultural differences.
Social Psychology and Cross-Cultural
Psychology: How Does Culture Infl uence
the Meaning of Success?
How does your cultural
experience influence your
perceptions of success
and failure?
kin35341_ch01_001-041.indd Page 28 8/1/12 4:54 PM user-f502kin35341_ch01_001-041.indd Page 28 8/1/12 4:54 PM user-f502 /207/MH01822/kin35341_disk1of1/0078035341/kin35341_pagefiles/207/MH01822/kin35341_disk1of1/0078035341/kin35341_pagefiles
Research Samples and Settings // 29
1. A correlation of 2.67 indicates
A. a strong positive relationship.
B. a strong negative relationship.
C. a weak positive relationship.
D. a weak negative relationship.
2. A study on obesity had four groups, each
with a different assignment. One group
of participants read a brochure about
diet and nutrition; another group had a
30-minute nutrition counseling session;
a third group read the newspaper; a
fourth group watched a video about ex-
ercise and fitness. The control group is
A. the group that had a counseling
B. the group that read the newspaper.
C. the group that read the brochure.
D. the group that watched the video.
3. Which of the following statements is
A. Only correlational research allows
researchers to determine causality.
B. Only experimental research allows
researchers to determine causality.
C. Both correlational and experimental
research allow researchers to deter-
mine causality.
D. Neither correlational nor experimen-
tal research allows researchers to
determine causality.
APPLY IT 4. Jacob wants to study the
relationship between falling in love and a
person’s academic performance. He asks
students to fill out a questionnaire in which
they answer “true” or “false” to the ques-
tion, “Did you fall in love this semester?”
Then he asks them for their GPA for the se-
mester. Jacob’s study is _________ study.
A. a correlational
B. an experimental
C. a sociological
D. a longitudinal
Among the important decisions to be made about collecting data are whom to choose as
the participants and where to the conduct the research. Will the participants be people
or animals? Will they be children, adults, or both? Where will the research take place
in a lab or in a natural setting?
The Research Sample
When psychologists conduct a study, they usually want to be able to draw conclusions
that will apply to a larger group of people than the participants they actually study. The
entire group about which the investigator wants to draw conclusions is the population .
The subset of the population chosen by the investigator for study is a sample . The
researcher might be interested only in a particular group, such as all children who are
gifted and talented, all young women who embark on science and math careers, or all
gay men. The key is that the sample studied must be representative of the population
The entire group about
which the investigator wants
to draw conclusions.
The subset of the
population cho-
sen by the inves-
tigator for study.
Research Samples and Settings
The research sample might include a particular group, such as all gay men or all women runners.
kin35341_ch01_001-041.indd Page 29 8/1/12 4:54 PM user-f502kin35341_ch01_001-041.indd Page 29 8/1/12 4:54 PM user-f502 /207/MH01822/kin35341_disk1of1/0078035341/kin35341_pagefiles/207/MH01822/kin35341_disk1of1/0078035341/kin35341_pagefiles
30 // CHAPTER 1 // The Science of Psychology
to which the investigator wants to generalize his or her results. That is, the researcher
might study only 100 gifted adolescents, but he or she wants to apply these results
to all gifted and talented adolescents.
To mirror the population as closely as possible, the researcher uses a ran-
dom sample , a sample that gives every member of the population an equal
chance of being selected. A representative sample would re ect population
factors such as age, socioeconomic status, ethnic origin, marital status, geo-
graphic location, and religion. A random sample provides much better grounds
for generalizing the results to a population than a nonrandom sample, because
random selection improves the chances that the sample is representative of
the population.
In selecting a sample, researchers must strive to minimize bias,
including gender bias. Because psychology is the scientific study of
human behavior, it should pertain to all humans, and so the participants
in psychological studies ought to be representative of humanity as a
whole. Early research in the field often included just the male experience—
not only because the researchers themselves were often male, but also
because the participants too were typically male (Matlin, 2012). For a long
time, the human experience studied by psychologists was primarily the male
There also has been a growing realization that psychological research needs to
include more people from diverse ethnic groups (Nieto & Bode, 2012). Because a
great deal of psychological research involves college student participants, individuals
from groups that have not had as many educational opportunities have not been
strongly represented in that research. Given the fact that individuals from diverse
ethnic groups were excluded from psychological research for so long, we might rea-
sonably conclude that people’s real lives are more varied than past research data have
These issues are important because scientists want to be able to predict human
behavior, not just non-Latino White male college student behavior. Imagine if policy-
makers planned their initiatives for a broad range of Americans based on research
derived from only a small group of individuals from a particular background. What
might the results be? Recent research on the science of happiness around the world
has caught the eye of public policymakers, as evidenced in the Psychology in Our
World feature.
The Research Setting
All three types of research we examined in the preceding section can take place in dif-
ferent settings. The setting of the research does not determine the type of research it is.
Common settings include the research laboratory and natural settings.
Because psychological researchers often want to control as many aspects of the
situation as possible, they conduct much of their research in a laboratory, a controlled
setting with many of the complex factors of the real world, including potential con-
founds, removed (Tucker-Drob, 2011). Although laboratory research provides a great
deal of control, doing research in the laboratory has drawbacks. First, it is almost impos-
sible to conduct research in the lab without the participants knowing they are being
studied. Second, the laboratory setting is not the real world and therefore can cause the
participants to behave unnaturally. A third drawback of laboratory research is that peo-
ple who are willing to go to a university laboratory may not be representative of groups
from diverse cultural backgrounds. Individuals who are unfamiliar with university set-
tings and with the idea of “helping science” may be intimidated by the setting. Fourth,
some aspects of the mind and behavior are dif cult if not impossible to examine in the
random sample
A sample that
gives every mem-
ber of the popu-
lation an equal
chance of being
Whoa. A random sample
the same thing as
random assignment. A
is about selecting
participants from a population
so that the sample is
representative of that
population, and
is about making
sure experimental and control
groups are equivalent. In
neither case does the word
mean that these
aspects of setting up a
study are haphazard.
kin35341_ch01_001-041.indd Page 30 8/1/12 4:54 PM user-f502kin35341_ch01_001-041.indd Page 30 8/1/12 4:54 PM user-f502 /207/MH01822/kin35341_disk1of1/0078035341/kin35341_pagefiles/207/MH01822/kin35341_disk1of1/0078035341/kin35341_pagefiles
Research Samples and Settings // 31
The Global Science of Happiness
etween 2005 and 2006, the Gallup Organization collected the fi rst-ever representative sample
of Planet Earth, called the Gallup World Poll (GWP) (Diener & others, 2010). GWP data were
collected from 132 nations (accounting for 96 percent of the world’s population). Within each coun-
try, a representative sample of all adults was collected; the total sample was 136,839 people.
Economic prosperity was measured through items about income, buying power, and ownership of
modern conveniences. Social prosperity was measured by asking whether respondents had felt
respected, had other people they could count on, had a chance to do what they were good at, and
felt in control of their life, in the previous day. Finally, respondents indicated their life satisfaction
and gave feedback on whether they had had positive emotional experiences (enjoyment, smiling, or
laughter) and negative emotional events (worry, sadness, depression, and anger) in the preceding
day. These data allowed for an examination of the intriguing question,
what factors contribute to happiness levels around the globe?
Psychologist Ed Diener and his colleagues (2010; Tay & Diener,
2011) reported the fi rst results of the GWP. They found that although
economic factors predicted greater life satisfaction across nations,
positive feelings (and low levels of negative feelings) were more
strongly predicted by social prosperity—factors such as feeling
respected and having people to count on (Diener & others, 2010).
From the full sample, 89 nations were ranked according to their
standing on the different variables collected in the survey. Comparing
the ranks of different nations provides interesting clues about the
pathways to national happiness. The United States ranked fi rst in
income levels but was 26th in positive feelings and 49th in terms of
low levels of negative feelings. Read: Despite their relative wealth, Americans are not that happy .
In contrast, the happiest nation was New Zealand, which ranked 22nd on economic factors. Clearly
the wealth of a nation is no guarantee of happiness among its citizens. Costa Rica ranked 4th in
positive feelings and 6th in social prosperity but was 41st in economic prosperity. Thus, high lev-
els of positive feelings can exist even in the face of relatively low wealth.
Diener and his colleagues concluded that if nations are interested in fostering well-being among
their citizens, focusing on economic variables will not suffi ce. Attention to variables that represent
the social prosperity of citizens will be required to make the world a happier place.
Policymakers have taken notice. In July 2011, the United Nations General Assembly passed a
resolution emphasizing the enhancement of the experience of happiness around the world (United
Nations, 2011). The resolution stated that:
The pursuit of happiness is a fundamental and universal human goal.
The gross domestic product of a nation does not adequatelyrefl ect the happiness and well-being
of its citizens.
Nations should develop measures of happiness and well-being and use them to guide their
national policies.
The authors of the Declaration of Independence recognized the pursuit of happiness as an
unalienable human right. In short, the United States’ very founders believed that all people are
born with the right to seek out and enjoy happiness. Today, the global science of happiness is ded-
icated to identifying the routes by which nations can help their citizens achieve this goal.
kin35341_ch01_001-041.indd Page 31 8/1/12 4:54 PM user-f502kin35341_ch01_001-041.indd Page 31 8/1/12 4:54 PM user-f502 /207/MH01822/kin35341_disk1of1/0078035341/kin35341_pagefiles/207/MH01822/kin35341_disk1of1/0078035341/kin35341_pagefiles
32 // CHAPTER 1 // The Science of Psychology
Research can also take place in a natural setting. Naturalistic observation is observ-
ing behavior in a real-world setting (Girden & Kabacoff, 2011; Leedy & Ormrod, 2010).
Psychologists conduct naturalistic observations at sporting events, child-care centers,
work settings, shopping malls, and other places that people frequent. If you wanted to
study the level of civility on your campus for a research project, most likely you would
include naturalistic observation of how people treat one another in such gathering places
as the cafeteria and the library reading room. In another example of a natural setting,
researchers who use survey methods are increasingly relying on web-based assessments
that allow participants to complete the measures using the Internet.
The type of research a psychologist conducts, the operational de nitions of the variables
of interest, and the choice of sample and setting are decisions that ideally are guided by
the research question itself. However, sometimes these decisions represent a compromise
between the psychologist’s key objective (for example, to study a representative sample of
Americans) and the available resources (for instance, a sample of 100 college students).
naturalistic observation
The observation of behavior
in a real-world setting.
Natural settings and laboratories are common locales for psychological studies. ( Left ) Jane Goodall,
who specializes in animal behavior, has carried out extensive research on chimpanzees in natural
settings. Her work has contributed a great deal to our understanding of these intelligent primates.
( Right ) Barbara L. Fredrickson, a psychologist at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, whose
work investigates topics such as positive emotions and human fl ourishing, conducts a laboratory study.
1. The entire group of people about whom
a researcher wants to draw conclusions
is the
A. sample.
B. random sample.
C. population.
D. fi eld.
2. When a researcher decides to study a
particular group, such as Latino factory
workers, the researcher is specifically
determining the study’s
A. population.
B. sample.
C. research setting.
D. scope.
3. A drawback of laboratory research is that
A. it is hard to conduct without the
participants’ knowledge that they are
being studied.
B. people unfamiliar with the university
environment and culture may be in-
timidated and thus underrepresented.
C. the lab setting is unnatural and may
thus cause participants to behave
D. all of the above
APPLY IT 4. Emily, a committed envi-
ronmentalist, reads a report that among a
nationally representative sample, 60 per-
cent of people polled support drilling for
oil off the shores of California. The poll
includes 1,000 people. Emily scoffs at the
results, noting that all of the people she
knows do not support offshore drilling. The
poll must be flawed, she insists. How do
you evaluate Emily’s statement?
A. Emily is likely to be wrong. A represen-
tative sample is more likely to refl ect
the general population than the small
sample of Emily’s friends.
B. Emily is likely to be wrong because
1,000 people is a high number.
C. Emily is probably right because, as an
environmentalist, she is probably more
in tune with these issues than any poll-
ing organization.
D. Emily is probably right because even rep-
resentative polls are usually biased.
kin35341_ch01_001-041.indd Page 32 8/1/12 4:54 PM user-f502kin35341_ch01_001-041.indd Page 32 8/1/12 4:54 PM user-f502 /207/MH01822/kin35341_disk1of1/0078035341/kin35341_pagefiles/207/MH01822/kin35341_disk1of1/0078035341/kin35341_pagefiles
Conducting Ethical Research // 33
Ethics is an important consideration for all science. This fact came to the fore in the
aftermath of World War II, for example, when it became apparent that Nazi doctors
had used concentration camp prisoners as unwilling participants in experiments.
These atrocities spurred scientists to develop a code of appropriate behavior—a set
of principles about the treatment that participants in research have a right to expect.
In general, ethical principles of research focus on balancing the rights of the par-
ticipants with the rights of scientists to ask important research questions (Smith &
Davis, 2010).
The issue of ethics in psychological research may affect you personally
if at some point you serve as a participant in a study. In that event,
you need to know your rights as a participant and the researchers’
responsibilities in ensuring that these rights are safeguarded.
Experiences in research can have unforeseen effects on
people’s lives.
One investigation of young dating couples, for
example, asked them to complete a questionnaire that
coincidentally stimulated some of the participants to
think about potentially troublesome issues in the rela-
tionship (Rubin & Mitchell, 1976). One year later,
when the researchers followed up with the original
sample, 9 of 10 participants said they had discussed
their answers with their dating partners. In most instances,
the discussions helped to strengthen the relationships.
In some cases, however, the participants used the ques-
tionnaire as a springboard to discuss problems or concerns
previously hidden. One participant said, “The study de -
nitely played a role in ending my relationship with Larry.” In
this case, the couple had different views about how long they
expected to be together. She was thinking of a short-term dating rela-
tionship, whereas he was thinking in terms of a lifetime. Their answers to the
questions brought the disparity in their views to the surface and led to the end of their
relationship. Researchers have a responsibility to anticipate the personal problems
their study might cause and, at least, to inform the participants of the possible fallout.
Ethics comes into play in every psychological study. Even smart, conscientious stu-
dents sometimes think that members of their church, athletes in the Special Olympics,
or residents of the local nursing home where they volunteer present great samples for
psychological research. Without proper permission, though, the most well-meaning, kind,
and considerate researchers still violate the rights of the participants.
Ethics Guidelines
Various guidelines have been developed to ensure that research is conducted ethically.
At the base of all of these guidelines is the notion that a person participating in psycho-
logical research should be no worse off coming out of the study than he or she was on
the way in.
Today colleges and universities have a review board (typically called the institutional
review board, or IRB ) that evaluates the ethical nature of research conducted at their
institutions. Proposed research plans must pass the scrutiny of a research ethics com-
mittee before the research can be initiated. In addition, the American Psychological
Conducting Ethical Research
kin35341_ch01_001-041.indd Page 33 8/1/12 4:54 PM user-f502kin35341_ch01_001-041.indd Page 33 8/1/12 4:54 PM user-f502 /207/MH01822/kin35341_disk1of1/0078035341/kin35341_pagefiles/207/MH01822/kin35341_disk1of1/0078035341/kin35341_pagefiles
34 // CHAPTER 1 // The Science of Psychology
Association (APA) has developed ethics guidelines for its members. The APA code of
ethics instructs psychologists to protect their participants from mental and physical
harm. The participants’ best interests need to be kept foremost in the researcher’s mind
(Christensen, Johnson, & Turner, 2011). APAs guidelines address four important issues:
Informed consent: All participants must know what their participation will involve and
what risks might develop. For example, participants in a study on dating should be
told beforehand that a questionnaire might stimulate thoughts about issues in their
relationships that they have not considered. Participants also should be informed that
in some instances a discussion of the issues might improve their relationships but that
in others it might worsen the relationships and possibly end them. Even after informed
consent is given, participants must retain the right to withdraw from the study at any
time and for any reason.
Con dentiality: Researchers are responsible for keeping all of the data they gather on
individuals completely con dential and, when possible, completely anonymous. Con-
dential data are not the same as anonymous. When data are con dential, it is pos-
sible to link a participant’s identity to his or her data.
Debrie ng: After the study has been completed, the researchers should inform the
participants of its purpose and the methods they used. In most cases, the experiment-
ers also can inform participants in a general manner beforehand about the purpose of
the research without leading the participants to behave in a way that they think that
magine that you have signed up to participate in an experiment
for which you will receive $3. The experimenter tells you that
the study concerns decision making and timing. Your task is to
solve a list of word jumbles. For each jumble
you solve correctly, you and a randomly se-
lected participant from another study will both
receive $1. The experimenter cautions that
you must solve the jumbles in the order pr e-
sented . If you fail to solve an early jumble, you
will not receive payment for any subsequent
jumbles in the list.
The experimenter then leaves you alone
with a list of nine scrambled words to solve.
Skimming the list, you see that the  rst two
words are a cinch, but the third one is tricky:
UNAAGT. The rest of the words look pretty easy
too, except the last one: YOMSEELVD. When
the experimenter returns, he gives you another
copy of the list and asks you to check off
which jumbles you got correct, but he does not ask you for the
actual answers .
After you complete a few other measures, the experimenter
tells you that this study was actually not about decision making
and timing at all. Instead, it was about lying . This experiment,
which was in fact conducted in real life by Scott Wiltermuth (2011),
tested the prediction that people will be more likely to lie if doing
so bene ts not only themselves but another person as
well, as in the condition described above. Wiltermuth
found that participants were more likely to lie and to
say they solved the seemingly impossible jumbles if
doing so was advantageous not just for themselves
but for another person as well. (By the way, those im-
possible jumbles have solutions: The taguan is a large
nocturnal  ying squirrel, and semovedly is a little-used
synonym for separately. )
Certainly, this interesting study has implications
for understanding ethical behaviors. Many real-world
situations involve unethical behaviors that bene t not
only the person engaging in the behavior but others
too. Think of athletes in team sports who take ste-
roids to bene t their teammates as well as them-
selves, and accountants who cheat on their clients’
taxes to bene t those clients. Even Wall Street broker Bernie
Madoff’s infamous Ponzi scheme paid off (temporarily) not only
for Bernie but also for some of his investors. These are impor-
tant human behaviors for scientists to probe.
Is It Ethical to Use Deception in Research?
kin35341_ch01_001-041.indd Page 34 8/1/12 4:54 PM user-f502kin35341_ch01_001-041.indd Page 34 8/1/12 4:54 PM user-f502 /207/MH01822/kin35341_disk1of1/0078035341/kin35341_pagefiles/207/MH01822/kin35341_disk1of1/0078035341/kin35341_pagefiles
Conducting Ethical Research // 35
Yet consider the irony implicit in a study such as Wiltermuth’s.
A study about lying , an unethical behavior, employed deception .
A study on lying involved lying to participants. Is that really
Deception in psychological research can range from deception
by omission to active deception. Dece p tion by omission means not
telling participants what a study is really about. Active deception
means misleading participants about what is going on in a study.
Active deception might include, for example, giving participants
false feedback about their performance on a task or leading them
to believe that a confederate is just another participant in the
The use of deception in research has been criticized on a
variety of grounds (Hertwig & Ortmann, 2008; Kimmel, 2012).
For one thing, religions and cultures view lying as morally wrong.
Exceptions are made, of course, in situations that call for “little
white lies.” Are psychological studies also an exception to this
rule? For another thing, deception is criticized because of its in u-
ence on the availability of naive participants. Once a person has
been deceived in a study, he or she may be less likely to believe
researchers in later studies, even when no deception is involved.
Thus, deception in one study may create suspicion among partici-
pants in general and might in uence the validity of future studies
(Hertwig & Ortmann, 2008). Such a possibility has led to a gen-
eral prohibition against deception in experiments in economics
(Ariely & Norton, 2007). Finally, studies using deception may
erode public trust in the science of psychology generally (Kimmel,
2012). If people believe that psychological researchers engage in
unethical behavior, why should they believe anything these schol-
ars have to say?
Another issue is that a study that uses deception inherently
violates the principle of informed consent. Even in the case of
deception by omission, the participants cannot be fully informed
prior to giving consent. This is why participants in studies involv-
ing deception should have the option of withdrawing consent after
they  nd out what the study is actually about.
As a student of psychology, you will encounter many studies
that employ deception. That deception can be as profound as
leading people to believe that they are administering harmful elec-
trical shocks to another person
(in classic and controversial re-
search by Stanley Milgram that
we will explore in Chapter 11).
Researchers who employ decep-
tion in their studies must be
able to justify lying to partici-
pants, because doing so is vital
to the scienti c merit of their
work (Benham, 2008). Psycho-
logical researchers take decep-
tion seriously and employ it only
when no other options would al-
low them to ask the questions
they seek to answer.
What Do You Think?
How do you feel about the
use of deception in
psychological research?
If you participated in a study
and found out that it
involved deception, would
that experience change your
perspective on future
studies? Why or why not?
the experimenters are expecting. When preliminary information about the study is
likely to affect the results, participants can at least be debriefed after the study’s
Deception: This is an ethical issue that psychologists debate extensively. In some
circumstances, telling the participants beforehand what the research study is about
substantially alters the participants’ behavior and invalidates the researcher’s data.
For example, suppose a psychologist wants to know whether bystanders will report
a theft. A mock theft is staged, and the psychologist observes which bystanders report
it. Had the psychologist informed the participants beforehand that the study intended
to discover the percentage of bystanders who will report a theft, the whole study
would have been ruined. Thus, the researcher deceives participants about the purpose
of the study, perhaps leading them to believe that it has some other purpose. In all
cases of deception, however, the psychologist must ensure that the deception will not
harm the participants and that the participants will be told the true nature of the study
(will be debriefed) as soon as possible after the study is completed. To read more
about the issues involved in the use of deception in research, see Challenge Your
The federal government also takes a role in ensuring that research involving human
participants is conducted ethically. The Federal Of ce for Protection from Research Risks
is devoted to safeguarding the well-being of participants in research studies. Over the years,
the of ce has dealt with many challenging and controversial issues—among them, informed
kin35341_ch01_001-041.indd Page 35 8/1/12 4:54 PM user-f502kin35341_ch01_001-041.indd Page 35 8/1/12 4:54 PM user-f502 /207/MH01822/kin35341_disk1of1/0078035341/kin35341_pagefiles/207/MH01822/kin35341_disk1of1/0078035341/kin35341_pagefiles
36 // CHAPTER 1 // The Science of Psychology
consent rules for research on psychological disorders, regulations governing research
on pregnant women and fetuses, and ethical issues regarding AIDS vaccine research.
Of considerable concern is the ways that the principles of ethical research
apply when studies involve vulnerable populations, which include children,
individuals with psychological disorders, incarcerated individuals, and others
who may be especially susceptible to coercion. For example, when children
participate in research, parental consent is essential. Children may be asked
to agree to participate as well. When prisoners or individuals who are on
parole participate in research, it must be clear that their treatment and deci-
sions about their future release or parole will not be in uenced by their willing-
ness to participate.
The Ethics of Research with Animals
For generations, psychologists have used animals in some research. Animal studies have
provided a better understanding of and solutions for many human problems (Pinel, 2009).
Neal Miller (1985), who has made important discoveries about the effects of biofeedback
on health, listed the following areas in which animal research has bene ted humans:
Psychotherapy techniques and behavioral medicine
Rehabilitation of neuromuscular disorders
Alleviation of the effects of stress and pain
Drugs to treat anxiety and severe mental illness
Methods for avoiding drug addiction and relapse
Treatments to help premature infants gain weight so they can leave the
hospital sooner
Methods used to alleviate memory de cits in old age
Only about 5 percent of APA members use animals in their research.
Rats and mice account for 90 percent of all psychological research
with animals. It is true that researchers sometimes use procedures
with animals that would be unethical with humans, but they are guided
by a set of standards for housing, feeding, and maintaining the psy-
chological and physical well-being of their animal subjects. Researchers
are required to weigh potential bene ts of the research against possible
harm to the animal and to avoid in icting unnecessary pain. Animal abuse
is not as common as animal activist groups charge. In short, researchers must
follow stringent ethical guidelines, whether animals or humans are the subjects
in their studies.
The Place of Values in
Psychological Research
Questions are asked not only about the ethics of psychology but also
about its values and its standards for judging what is worthwhile and
desirable. Some psychologists argue that psychology should be value-
free and morally neutral. From their perspective, the psychologist’s role
as a scientist is to present facts as objectively as possible. Others believe
that because psychologists are human, they cannot possibly be value-
free. Indeed, some people go so far as to argue that psychologists
should take stands on certain issues. For example, psychological
Students who
receive extra credit for
participating in research might
also be considered vulnerable
to coercion. T hey must have
an option to receive that
same extra credit
without agreeing to
participate in
kin35341_ch01_001-041.indd Page 36 8/1/12 4:54 PM user-f502kin35341_ch01_001-041.indd Page 36 8/1/12 4:54 PM user-f502 /207/MH01822/kin35341_disk1of1/0078035341/kin35341_pagefiles/207/MH01822/kin35341_disk1of1/0078035341/kin35341_pagefiles
Learning About Psychology Means Learning About You // 37
research shows that children reared by gay male and lesbian parents are no more likely
to be gay than other children and that the children of homosexual partners tend to dem-
onstrate levels of psychological health that are equal to or higher than those of children
reared by heterosexual parents (Patterson, 2012; Patterson & Farr, 2012; Patterson &
Wainright, 2010). To the extent that some have argued against the rights of gay indi-
viduals to adopt children or to retain custody of their biological children, psychologists
may have a role to play in the debate about these issues.
1. Providing research participants with in-
formation about the purpose of a study
at the study’s conclusion is called
A. informed consent.
B. deception.
C. debriefi ng.
D. confi dentiality.
2. The organization that provides ethical
guidelines for psychologists is the
A. American Psychiatric Association.
B. Institutional Review Board.
C. American Medical Association.
D. American Psychological Association.
3. A study could possibly put participants
at risk of harm, but the participants are
not told about that risk. The ethical
standard that has been violated is
A. debriefi ng.
B. informed consent.
C. deception.
D. confi dentiality.
APPLY IT 4. Amanda is participating
in a psychological study as part of her Intro
Psychology course. While filling out items
on a questionnaire, Amanda finds that some
of them embarrass her, and she decides to
skip them. As she leaves the study, the
experimenter notices these blank questions
and asks Amanda to complete them because
the research will be ruined without
complete data from all participants. Which
of the following accurately assesses the
ethics of this situation?
A. Amanda should really complete those
questions. What’s the big deal?
B. Amanda is within her rights to leave
any question blank if she chooses, and
the experimenter has defi nitely crossed
a line.”
C. Amanda is ethically wrong because she
agreed to be in the study, and so she
must see it through.
D. If Amanda read and signed the consent
form, she is obligated to do as the
experimenter says.
Throughout your life you have been exposed to a good deal of information about psy-
chological research. In this book and your introductory psychology class, you will also
learn about a multitude of research  ndings. In this last section, we consider the ways
that learning about psychological studies can help you learn about yourself. We start by
looking at some guidelines for evaluating psychological research  ndings that you might
encounter in your everyday life.
Encountering Psychology
in Everyday Life
Not all psychological information that is presented for public consumption comes from
professionals with excellent credentials and reputations at colleges or universities or in
applied mental health settings (Stanovich, 2010). Because journalists, television reporters,
and other media personnel are not usually trained in psychological research, they often
have trouble sorting through the widely varying material they  nd and making sound
decisions about the best information to present to the public. In addition, the media often
focus on sensationalistic and dramatic psychological  ndings to capture public attention.
They tend to go beyond what actual research articles and clinical  ndings really say.
Even when the media present the results of excellent research, they have trouble
accurately informing people about the  ndings and their implications for people’s lives.
This entire book is dedicated to carefully introducing, de ning, and elaborating on key
Learning About Psychology Means
Learning About You
kin35341_ch01_001-041.indd Page 37 8/1/12 4:54 PM user-f502kin35341_ch01_001-041.indd Page 37 8/1/12 4:54 PM user-f502 /207/MH01822/kin35341_disk1of1/0078035341/kin35341_pagefiles/207/MH01822/kin35341_disk1of1/0078035341/kin35341_pagefiles
38 // CHAPTER 1 // The Science of Psychology
concepts and issues, research, and clinical  ndings. The media, however, do not have the
luxury of so much time and space to detail and specify the limitations and quali cations
of research. In the end, you have to take responsibility for evaluating media reports on
psychological research. To put it another way, you have to consume psychological infor-
mation critically and wisely. Five guidelines follow.
reports of psychological information often leave out details about the nature of the sam-
ple used in a given study. Without information about sample characteristics—such as the
number of participants, how many were male or female, or their ethnic representation—
it is wise to take research results with a grain of salt.
Just as we cannot generalize from a small group to all people, we also cannot apply
conclusions from a group to an individual. When you learn about psychological research
through the media, you might be disposed to apply the results to your life. It is important
to keep in mind that statistics about a group do not necessarily represent each individual
in the group equally well. Imagine, for example, taking a test in a class and being told
that the class average was 75 percent, but you got 98 percent. It is unlikely that you
would want the instructor to apply the group average to your score.
Sometimes consumers of psychological research can get the wrong idea about whether
their experience is “normal” if it does not match group statistics. New parents face this
issue all the time. They read about developmental milestones that supposedly character-
ize an entire age group of children; one such milestone might be that most 2-year-olds
are conversing with their parents. However, this group information does not necessarily
characterize all children who are developing normally. Albert Einstein did not start talk-
ing until he was the ripe old age of 3.
identify an interesting piece of research and claim that it is something phenomenal with
far-reaching implications. Although such pivotal studies do occur, they are rare. It is safer
to assume that no single study will provide conclusive answers to an important question,
especially answers that apply to all people. In fact, in most psychological domains that
prompt many investigations, con icting results are common. Answers to questions in
research usually emerge after many scientists have conducted similar investigations that
yield similar conclusions. Remember that you should not take one research study as the
absolute,  nal answer to a problem, no matter how compelling the  ndings.
Drawing causal conclusions from correlational studies is one of the most common mis-
takes the media make. When a true experiment has not been conducted—that is, when
participants have not been randomly assigned to treatments or experiences—two vari-
ables might have only a non-causal relationship to each other. Remember from the
discussion of correlation earlier in the chapter that causal interpretations cannot be
made when two or more factors are simply correlated. We cannot say that one causes
the other. When you hear about correlational studies, be skeptical of words indicating
causation until you know more about the particular research.
TION Studies conducted by psychologists are not automatically accepted by the
rest of the research community. The researchers usually must submit their  nd-
ings to a journal for review by their colleagues, who make a decision about
whether to publish the paper, depending on its scienti c merit. This process,
called peer review, means that research that is published in scholarly jour-
nals has survived the scrutiny of experts in a particular area. Although the
takes the
ables mi
made wh
the other.
kin35341_ch01_001-041.indd Page 38 8/1/12 4:54 PM user-f502kin35341_ch01_001-041.indd Page 38 8/1/12 4:54 PM user-f502 /207/MH01822/kin35341_disk1of1/0078035341/kin35341_pagefiles/207/MH01822/kin35341_disk1of1/0078035341/kin35341_pagefiles
Learning About Psychology Means Learning About You // 39
quality of research and  ndings is not uniform among all psychology journals, in most
cases journals submit the  ndings to far greater scrutiny than the popular media do
(Stanovich, 2010).
Within the media, though, you can usually draw a distinction. The reports of
psychological research in respected newspapers such as the New York Times and
the Washington Post , as well as in credible magazines such as Time and News-
week, are more trustworthy than reports in tabloids such as the National
Enquirer and Star.
Finally, it is not unusual to read about psychological research online, where
bloggers and others might comment on the validity of researchers’  ndings.
When you encounter research-related information on the web, see if you can
nd the actual study and read it. As helpful as a Google search, a blog, or a
Wikipedia entry might be, reading the actual science is crucial to evaluating
the conclusions drawn. Whatever the source—serious publication, tabloid, blog,
online news outlet, or even academic journal—you are responsible for reading
the details behind the reported  ndings and for analyzing the study’s credibility.
Appreciating Psychology
as the Science of You
In taking introductory psychology, you have an amazing opportunity. You will learn a
great deal about human beings, especially one particular human being: you. Whether the
psychological research presented is about emotions and motivation or the structures of
the nervous system, it is still essentially about you.
When you think of psychology, you might think  rst and foremost about the mind and
its complex mental processes such as those involved in love, gratitude, hate, and anger.
However, psychology has come to recognize more and more that the mind and its opera-
tions are intricately connected to the body. As you will see when we examine neuroscience
in Chapter 2, observations of the brain at work reveal that when mental processes change,
so do physical processes. This mind–body link has fascinated philosophers for centuries.
Psychology occupies the very spot where the mind and the body meet.
It might be helpful to think concretely about the ways the mind and body can relate
to each other even as they are united in the physical reality of a person. Let’s say you
experience a mental event such as watching an episode of The Biggest Loser . You
decide to embark on a workout regimen for six-pack abdominals. Dedication, goal
setting, and self-discipline will be the kinds of mental processes necessary to
transform your body. The mind can work on the body, prompting changes to its
shape and size.
Similarly, the body can dramatically in uence the mind. Consider how fuzzy
your thinking is after you stay out too late and how much easier it is to solve
life’s problems after a good night’s sleep. Also think about your outlook on the
rst day of true recovery from a nagging cold: Everything seems better. Your
mood and your work improve. Clearly, physical states such as illness and
health in uence how we think.
The relationship between the body and mind is illustrated in a major
dilemma that countless psychologists have faced: the impact of nature
versus nurture. Essentially, psychologists have wondered and debated
which of the two is more important to a person—nature (that is, genetic
heritage) or nurture (social experiences). The in uence of genetics on a
variety of psychological characteristics, and the ways that genetic in u-
ence can itself be altered by experience, will be addressed in many of
the main topics in this book, from development (Chapter 8) to person-
ality traits (Chapter 10) to psychological disorders (Chapter 12). You
will see that at every turn, your physical and mental self are intertwined
in ways you may have never considered.
on, goal
ary to
to its
n t
In the next few days, look through
several newspapers, magazines, and
your favorite online news sources for
reports about psychological research.
Apply the guidelines for being a
wise consumer of information about
psychology to these media reports.
kin35341_ch01_001-041.indd Page 39 8/1/12 4:54 PM user-f502kin35341_ch01_001-041.indd Page 39 8/1/12 4:54 PM user-f502 /207/MH01822/kin35341_disk1of1/0078035341/kin35341_pagefiles/207/MH01822/kin35341_disk1of1/0078035341/kin35341_pagefiles
40 // CHAPTER 1 // The Science of Psychology
Throughout this book, we investigate the ways that all of the various approaches to
psychology matter to your life. Psychology is crucially about you, essential to your
understanding of your life, your goals, and the ways that you can use the insights of
thousands of scientists to make your life healthier and happier.
and the control group (the comparison group or baseline that is equal
to the experimental group in every way except for the independent
variable). Experimental research relies on random assignment to ensure
that the groups are roughly equivalent before the manipulation of the
independent variable.
5 Research Samples and Settings
Two important decisions that must be made for psychological research
are whom to study and where to study them. A sample is the group
that participates in a study; the population is the group to which the
researcher wishes to generalize the results. A random sample is the best
way of ensuring that the sample re ects the population. Research set-
tings include the laboratory as well as real-world, naturalistic contexts.
The laboratory allows a great deal of control, but naturalistic settings
may give a truer sense of natural behavior.
6 Conducting Ethical Research
For all kinds of research, ethical treatment of participants is very impor-
tant. Participants should leave a psychological study no worse off than
they were when they entered. Guiding principles for ethical research
in psychology include informed consent, con dentiality, debrie ng
(participants should be fully informed about the purpose of a study
once it is over), and explaining fully the use of deception in a study.
7 Learning About Psychology Means
Learning About You
In your everyday life and in introductory psychology, you will be ex-
posed to psychological research  ndings. In encountering psychological
research in the media, you should adopt the attitude of a scientist and
critically evaluate the research as presented. In introductory psychology,
you should make the most of the experience by applying it to your life.
Psychology is, after all, the scienti c study of you—your behavior,
thoughts, goals, and well-being.
1 Defi ning Psychology and Exploring
Its Roots
Psychology is the scienti c study of human behavior and mental pro-
cesses. Psychologists approach human behavior as scientists who think
critically and who are curious, skeptical, and objective. Psychology
emerged as a science from philosophy and physiology. Two founders of
the science of psychology are Wilhelm Wundt and William James.
2 Contemporary Approaches
to Psychology
Approaches to psychology include biological, behavioral, psychody-
namic, humanistic, cognitive, evolutionary, and sociocultural. All of
these perspectives consider important questions about human behavior
from different but complementary vantage points.
3 Psychologys Scientifi c Method
Psychologists use the scienti c method to address research questions.
This method involves starting with a theory and then making observa-
tions, formulating hypotheses, testing these through empirical research,
drawing conclusions, and evaluating these conclusions. The science of
psychology is an ongoing conversation among scholars.
4 Types of Psychological Research
Three types of research commonly used in psychology are descriptive
research ( nding out about the basic dimensions of some variable),
correlational research ( nding out if and how two variables change to-
gether), and experimental research (determining the causal relationship
between variables). In an experiment, the independent variable is ma-
nipulated to see if it produces changes in the dependent variable. Exper-
iments involve comparing two groups: the experimental group (the one
that receives the treatment or manipulation of the independent variable)
psychology, p. 2
science, p. 2
behavior, p. 2
mental processes, p. 2
critical thinking, p. 3
empirical method, p. 4
structuralism, p. 6
functionalism, p. 7
natural selection, p. 7
biological approach, p. 8
neuroscience, p. 9
behavioral approach, p. 9
psychodynamic approach, p. 9
humanistic approach, p. 10
cognitive approach, p. 10
evolutionary approach, p. 10
sociocultural approach, p. 11
variable, p. 13
theory, p. 14
hypothesis, p. 14
kin35341_ch01_001-041.indd Page 40 8/1/12 4:54 PM user-f502kin35341_ch01_001-041.indd Page 40 8/1/12 4:54 PM user-f502 /207/MH01822/kin35341_disk1of1/0078035341/kin35341_pagefiles/207/MH01822/kin35341_disk1of1/0078035341/kin35341_pagefiles
Self-Test // 41
operational de nition, p. 15
case study, p. 18
correlational research, p. 20
third variable problem, p. 21
longitudinal design, p. 22
experiment, p. 23
random assignment, p. 23
independent variable, p. 24
confederate, p. 24
dependent variable, p. 24
experimental group, p. 24
control group, p. 24
validity, p. 25
external validity, p. 25
internal validity, p. 25
experimenter bias, p. 25
demand characteristics, p. 26
research participant bias, p. 26
placebo effect, p. 26
placebo, p. 26
double-blind experiment, p. 26
population, p. 29
sample, p. 29
random sample, p. 30
naturalistic observation, p. 32
Multiple Choice
1. The beginning of psychology as a science
began in the discipline of
A. philosophy.
B. physics.
C. sociology.
D. biology.
2. Of the following experimental situations
that a structuralist might conduct, the one
that refl ects the method of introspection is
A. documenting subjects’ descriptions of
an experience.
B. asking subjects to remember a list of
C. testing rats in a maze to see how fast
they learn.
D. rewarding subjects for solving problems.
3. Structuralism focuses on ________, and
functionalism focuses on ________.
A. thoughts; behaviors
B. the components of the mind; the pur-
poses of the mind
C. pragmatism; idealism
D. natural selection; environment
4. The individual most closely associated
with behaviorism is
A. B. F. Skinner.
B. Charles Darwin.
C. Wilhelm Wundt.
D. William James.
5. Of the following, the topic that would be
of most interest to a psychodynamic psy-
chologist is
A. altruism.
B. unconscious drives.
C. the adaptiveness of behaviors.
D. people’s thought processes.
6. The type of research design that allows a
researcher to test for causation is
A. correlational design.
B. longitudinal design.
C. case study design.
D. experimental design.
7. A researcher fi nds that as scores on opti-
mism go up, scores on depression go down.
Moreover, she fi nds a strong relationship be-
tween optimism and depression. Which of
the following correlation coeffi cients would
be most consistent with her fi ndings?
A. .38
B. .79
C. 2.11
D. 2.68
8. An experimenter told a research partici-
pant that the purpose of the study was to
examine people’s reaction to media vio-
lence. In reality, the purpose was to exam-
ine group dynamics. A potential ethical
problem for this study would be
A. debriefi ng.
B. confi dentiality.
C. informed consent.
D. deception.
9. Alfonso is in a study testing the effective-
ness of a new type of medication. He is
given a pill that contains no actual medi-
cine (a sugar pill). After taking the pill, he
reports signifi cantly fewer symptoms.
Which of the following is at play?
A. experimenter bias
B. placebo effect
C. external validity
D. internal validity
10. An example of selecting a random sample is
A. randomly choosing a group of 50 stu-
dents from a roster of all students in a
B. randomly choosing a classroom from all
classrooms in a school.
C. randomly choosing students who at-
tended a soccer game.
D. choosing each 50th student who enters
the building’s front entrance.
Apply It!
11. Georgia believes that people are more likely
to behave kindly toward others if they are
in a good mood. She randomly assigns par-
ticipants (who are psychology students par-
ticipating for research credit) to one of two
groups. In one group, participants are told
to write for 10 minutes about the happiest
moment of their life. In the other group,
participants write for 10 minutes about a
typical day in their life.
A. Why did Georgia assign participants to
groups randomly?
B. In Georgia’s study, what are the inde-
pendent variable and the dependent
variable, and how is each of these
operationally defi ned?
C. Identify the experimental group and the
control group in Georgia’s study .
kin35341_ch01_001-041.indd Page 41 8/1/12 4:54 PM user-f502kin35341_ch01_001-041.indd Page 41 8/1/12 4:54 PM user-f502 /207/MH01822/kin35341_disk1of1/0078035341/kin35341_pagefiles/207/MH01822/kin35341_disk1of1/0078035341/kin35341_pagefiles